Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
Though I never experienced either, I had my share of quadraphonic vinyl LPs, since I enjoy hearing different mixes. I don't believe vinyl was capable of providing great detailed sound from four channels. However, since speakers became cheaper and smaller and since the digital media was capable of four truly discrete channels, multi-channel (greater than two) recordings returned about the '90's.. I read a lot of comments about Surround Sound renditions, and even though I think the world of stereophonic reproduction, I'm certain Surround Sound would supply greater clarity of sounds!!
You could play Quadraphonic mixed LPs on any stereo phonograph. Sometimes, to make it more enticing to purchase the quadraphonic albums, there would be rewards, such as a Sly & The Family Stone hit song in premier stereo/quad sound. Even this fine 1970 song by Lynn Anderson, "Rose Garden", runs about 15 seconds longer than previously published!!... http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...segarden-q.mp3 Jack p.s. Though someone did a fine job mastering from vinyl (above), I had to remove a couple minor (vinyl) glitches. Aggressive Tick/Pop (software) removal failed, I did the next logical thing and CUT them out! You'll never, ever notice where, I will guarantee it. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On 30/04/2015 13:53, JackA wrote:
Though I never experienced either, I had my share of quadraphonic vinyl LPs, since I enjoy hearing different mixes. I don't believe vinyl was capable of providing great detailed sound from four channels. However, since speakers became cheaper and smaller and since the digital media was capable of four truly discrete channels, multi-channel (greater than two) recordings returned about the '90's.. I read a lot of comments about Surround Sound renditions, and even though I think the world of stereophonic reproduction, I'm certain Surround Sound would supply greater clarity of sounds!! You could play Quadraphonic mixed LPs on any stereo phonograph. Sometimes, to make it more enticing to purchase the quadraphonic albums, there would be rewards, such as a Sly & The Family Stone hit song in premier stereo/quad sound. Even this fine 1970 song by Lynn Anderson, "Rose Garden", runs about 15 seconds longer than previously published!!... http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...segarden-q.mp3 Jack p.s. Though someone did a fine job mastering from vinyl (above), I had to remove a couple minor (vinyl) glitches. Aggressive Tick/Pop (software) removal failed, I did the next logical thing and CUT them out! You'll never, ever notice where, I will guarantee it. A truly obsessive audio restorer would have correctly redrawn the damaged piece of waveform in by hand. ;-) And, yes, I have done this.... -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 10:07:40 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 30/04/2015 13:53, JackA wrote: Though I never experienced either, I had my share of quadraphonic vinyl LPs, since I enjoy hearing different mixes. I don't believe vinyl was capable of providing great detailed sound from four channels. However, since speakers became cheaper and smaller and since the digital media was capable of four truly discrete channels, multi-channel (greater than two) recordings returned about the '90's.. I read a lot of comments about Surround Sound renditions, and even though I think the world of stereophonic reproduction, I'm certain Surround Sound would supply greater clarity of sounds!! You could play Quadraphonic mixed LPs on any stereo phonograph. Sometimes, to make it more enticing to purchase the quadraphonic albums, there would be rewards, such as a Sly & The Family Stone hit song in premier stereo/quad sound. Even this fine 1970 song by Lynn Anderson, "Rose Garden", runs about 15 seconds longer than previously published!!... http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...segarden-q.mp3 Jack p.s. Though someone did a fine job mastering from vinyl (above), I had to remove a couple minor (vinyl) glitches. Aggressive Tick/Pop (software) removal failed, I did the next logical thing and CUT them out! You'll never, ever notice where, I will guarantee it. A truly obsessive audio restorer would have correctly redrawn the damaged piece of waveform in by hand. ;-) I only have the preschooler edition software. No drawing, just finger-painting!! And, yes, I have done this.... Sounds interesting! Software? Jack -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
John Williamson wrote:
On 30/04/2015 13:53, JackA wrote: Though I never experienced either, I had my share of quadraphonic vinyl LPs, since I enjoy hearing different mixes. I don't believe vinyl was capable of providing great detailed sound from four channels. However, since speakers became cheaper and smaller and since the digital media was capable of four truly discrete channels, multi-channel (greater than two) recordings returned about the '90's.. I read a lot of comments about Surround Sound renditions, and even though I think the world of stereophonic reproduction, I'm certain Surround Sound would supply greater clarity of sounds!! WHICH quadrophonic format? There were three popular ones, plus a few other more obscure ones. One of the popular ones actually did provide four discrete channels, the other two were matrix formats. Quadrophonic _is_ one kind of surround sound. It can work surprisingly well, or it can be used for horrible cheez-whiz effects with one instrument of the string quartet in each corner of the room. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On 30/04/2015 15:21, JackA wrote:
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 10:07:40 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote: On 30/04/2015 13:53, JackA wrote: p.s. Though someone did a fine job mastering from vinyl (above), I had to remove a couple minor (vinyl) glitches. Aggressive Tick/Pop (software) removal failed, I did the next logical thing and CUT them out! You'll never, ever notice where, I will guarantee it. A truly obsessive audio restorer would have correctly redrawn the damaged piece of waveform in by hand. ;-) I only have the preschooler edition software. No drawing, just finger-painting!! The job can also be done by selecting the click and using several milliseconds of automated gain reduction, with a couple of milliseconds of sloping edges to the curve. Reduce the gain so the click is about halved in apparent amplitude, and repeat as necessary. And, yes, I have done this.... Sounds interesting! Software? Audacity (Any version). Cool Edit 95. Cool Edit Pro. Adobe Audition 3. Take your pick. Click on and drag the individual samples in the waveform display. The only one I paid for was Audition, and it was worth the money for the easier workflow. I also note that whoever mangled your file used a dynamic range compressor set so badly that the bass is causing the vocals and all the other instruments to pump in time to the beat. The copy I have here sounds much cleaner, as it was sympathetically produced from the original studio master, and massaged gently to make it fit in with the rest of the compilation. The bass and vocals on mine also sound a *lot* cleaner, as no compression was applied to the master tape output. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
John Williamson wrote:
I also note that whoever mangled your file used a dynamic range compressor set so badly that the bass is causing the vocals and all the other instruments to pump in time to the beat. The copy I have here sounds much cleaner, as it was sympathetically produced from the original studio master, and massaged gently to make it fit in with the rest of the compilation. The bass and vocals on mine also sound a *lot* cleaner, as no compression was applied to the master tape output. "Turn up the gain from the audimax into the volumax until it starts pumping. Then turn it up just a little bit more. It has to be pumping, that is how you know it's working." -- Engineer-In-Charge, WTAR-AM -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On 30/04/2015 15:49, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Williamson wrote: I also note that whoever mangled your file used a dynamic range compressor set so badly that the bass is causing the vocals and all the other instruments to pump in time to the beat. The copy I have here sounds much cleaner, as it was sympathetically produced from the original studio master, and massaged gently to make it fit in with the rest of the compilation. The bass and vocals on mine also sound a *lot* cleaner, as no compression was applied to the master tape output. "Turn up the gain from the audimax into the volumax until it starts pumping. Then turn it up just a little bit more. It has to be pumping, that is how you know it's working." -- Engineer-In-Charge, WTAR-AM Ah, yes. You have a point. ;-) -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 10:24:41 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Williamson wrote: On 30/04/2015 13:53, JackA wrote: Though I never experienced either, I had my share of quadraphonic vinyl LPs, since I enjoy hearing different mixes. I don't believe vinyl was capable of providing great detailed sound from four channels. However, since speakers became cheaper and smaller and since the digital media was capable of four truly discrete channels, multi-channel (greater than two) recordings returned about the '90's.. I read a lot of comments about Surround Sound renditions, and even though I think the world of stereophonic reproduction, I'm certain Surround Sound would supply greater clarity of sounds!! WHICH quadrophonic format? There were three popular ones, plus a few other more obscure ones. One of the popular ones actually did provide four discrete channels, the other two were matrix formats. Quadrophonic _is_ one kind of surround sound. It can work surprisingly well, or it can be used for horrible cheez-whiz effects with one instrument of the string quartet in each corner of the room. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Scott, I'm far from an expert on Quad' formats, but I do not believe any provided well isolated discrete (4) channel sound, like (later) digital formats. Seem to recall reading about a 40 kHz or so carrier that contained the "rear" channel information. If so, many who appreciated it, would be "ripping" their Quad' vinyl LPs to a multi-channel format, maybe MOGG, or even MP3 Surround. I'm sure you remember, you could purchase gadgets to emulate Quad sound, but all that did is buck one rear channel against the other, so you would hear the difference. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 10:34:59 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 30/04/2015 15:21, JackA wrote: On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 10:07:40 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote: On 30/04/2015 13:53, JackA wrote: p.s. Though someone did a fine job mastering from vinyl (above), I had to remove a couple minor (vinyl) glitches. Aggressive Tick/Pop (software) removal failed, I did the next logical thing and CUT them out! You'll never, ever notice where, I will guarantee it. A truly obsessive audio restorer would have correctly redrawn the damaged piece of waveform in by hand. ;-) I only have the preschooler edition software. No drawing, just finger-painting!! The job can also be done by selecting the click and using several milliseconds of automated gain reduction, with a couple of milliseconds of sloping edges to the curve. Reduce the gain so the click is about halved in apparent amplitude, and repeat as necessary. And, yes, I have done this.... Sounds interesting! Software? Audacity (Any version). Cool Edit 95. Cool Edit Pro. Adobe Audition 3. Take your pick. Click on and drag the individual samples in the waveform display. The only one I paid for was Audition, and it was worth the money for the easier workflow. I also note that whoever mangled your file used a dynamic range compressor set so badly that the bass is causing the vocals and all the other instruments to pump in time to the beat. The copy I have here sounds much cleaner, as it was sympathetically produced from the original studio master, and massaged gently to make it fit in with the rest of the compilation. The bass and vocals on mine also sound a *lot* cleaner, as no compression was applied to the master tape output. Mine is "mangled"? I do not think so!! But YOU could always prove me wrong! Besides, John, I don't think you can tell me one major difference between this Quad mix and the (more common) Stereo mix! I thought it was cleverly done!! Jack -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 11:17:32 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
I'm far from an expert on Quad' formats, but I do not believe any provided well isolated discrete (4) channel sound, like (later) digital formats. Seem to recall reading about a 40 kHz or so carrier that contained the "rear" channel information. All of the phonograph record quad formats were "matrixed" because there are only two outputs from the stereo phono cartridge. Tape formats, however, were not. The TEAC 3340, the tape deck that, thanks to Dick Rosmini, pretty much started the home studio revolution, was originally designed for recording and playing back discrete four channel quad recordings. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
Mike Rivers wrote:
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 11:17:32 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote: I'm far from an expert on Quad' formats, but I do not believe any provide= d well isolated discrete (4) channel sound, like (later) digital formats. Seem to recall reading about a 40 kHz or so carrier that contained the "r= ear" channel information. All of the phonograph record quad formats were "matrixed" because there are= only two outputs from the stereo phono cartridge. Tape formats, however, w= ere not. The TEAC 3340, the tape deck that, thanks to Dick Rosmini, pretty = much started the home studio revolution, was originally designed for record= ing and playing back discrete four channel quad recordings.=20 QS and SQ were, like Dolby Surround, matrixed formats. However, CD-4 did in fact have a stereo subcarrier containing rear channel information, which gave you four discrete channels. For the first few plays the separation was pretty good but as the record wore it fell apart pretty quickly. 4-track tape was pretty popular, though. There were a lot of prerecorded 4-track tapes out there with surround mixes. (Do not confuse with quarter track, which sadly some record companies called "4-track" on the boxes.) --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 12:35:09 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 11:17:32 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote: I'm far from an expert on Quad' formats, but I do not believe any provided well isolated discrete (4) channel sound, like (later) digital formats. Seem to recall reading about a 40 kHz or so carrier that contained the "rear" channel information. All of the phonograph record quad formats were "matrixed" because there are only two outputs from the stereo phono cartridge. Tape formats, however, were not. The TEAC 3340, the tape deck that, thanks to Dick Rosmini, pretty much started the home studio revolution, was originally designed for recording and playing back discrete four channel quad recordings. Mike, point is, even when ['70's] popular, I never did find anyone offering a Quad demonstration who sold audio gear. Even when DJs had the freedom to play whatever they wished, I don't recall hearing any Quad LPs being played on FM radio. It's like it had already failed before it got out the door. Jack |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On 30/04/2015 16:52, JackA wrote:
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 10:34:59 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote: I also note that whoever mangled your file used a dynamic range compressor set so badly that the bass is causing the vocals and all the other instruments to pump in time to the beat. The copy I have here sounds much cleaner, as it was sympathetically produced from the original studio master, and massaged gently to make it fit in with the rest of the compilation. The bass and vocals on mine also sound a *lot* cleaner, as no compression was applied to the master tape output. Mine is "mangled"? I do not think so!! But YOU could always prove me wrong! Besides, John, I don't think you can tell me one major difference between this Quad mix and the (more common) Stereo mix! I thought it was cleverly done!! Read what I posted, then go and listen intently to your version and to the original stereo mix which is available on many compilation CDs, and you will understand why I said "mangled". You will notice that the vocals and other instruments are much clearer. As both versions are available as mp3 files, it's easy to do an A - B comparison using only your media player of choice. As your searching skills seem to be severely lacking, have a catalogue number for the version I compared yours with. CBS 5360/ Pegasus PEG CD 385 Obviously, you won't admit to thinking yours is mangled, as to admit this would be to admit that you are deliberately posting links to inferior audio solely in order to provoke a reaction on the group. The fact that you get very few comments on your posts is not endorsement f your efforts, but an indication of the effectiveness of many people's kill files. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
четвртак, 30. април 2015. 16.07.40 UTC+2, John Williamson је напиÑао/ла:
A truly obsessive audio restorer would have correctly redrawn the damaged piece of waveform in by hand. ;-) And, yes, I have done this.... -- Tciao for Now! John. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Zb4rso82M |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
Long ago, Miss Lynn came out of Lawrence Welk's office/dressing room and
blocked my path toward the stage. She tweaked my "soul patch" and said "I bet you drive the girls crazy with this". I was too young to understand what she was saying. Ah, if only I had known! -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 4:05:16 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 30/04/2015 16:52, JackA wrote: On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 10:34:59 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote: I also note that whoever mangled your file used a dynamic range compressor set so badly that the bass is causing the vocals and all the other instruments to pump in time to the beat. The copy I have here sounds much cleaner, as it was sympathetically produced from the original studio master, and massaged gently to make it fit in with the rest of the compilation. The bass and vocals on mine also sound a *lot* cleaner, as no compression was applied to the master tape output. Mine is "mangled"? I do not think so!! But YOU could always prove me wrong! Besides, John, I don't think you can tell me one major difference between this Quad mix and the (more common) Stereo mix! I thought it was cleverly done!! Read what I posted, then go and listen intently to your version and to the original stereo mix which is available on many compilation CDs, and you will understand why I said "mangled". Oh, I see, so what you do best is compare apples to oranges. Not to pick on Randy here, and I appreciate what he posted of Blood, Sweat & Tears. Again, it was a different mix. Most people never heard the album versions. Besides, John, in the '70's group, a Robby (UK) enjoyed the Quad mix maore than the Stereo mix. So, should I agree with him or you?? I never once said the audio of this is mind blowing, I think you want to put those words in my mouth. I just wanted others who never heard Quad mixes to hear this "extended" version, with neat panning of an electric guitar, missing on YOUR stereo mix. You will notice that the vocals and other instruments are much clearer. As both versions are available as mp3 files, it's easy to do an A - B comparison using only your media player of choice. Maybe your stereo version does have clearer vocals. I don't have any problem understanding the lyrics Lynn is singing, so it isn't as bad as you claim.. Besides, John, you can never have your cake and eat it, too. You always have to compromise when mixing, clearer vocals means less clear SOMETHING, generally music. As your searching skills seem to be severely lacking, have a catalogue number for the version I compared yours with. CBS 5360/ Pegasus PEG CD 385 That's nice, but I don't care to be like every Joe who walks earth, I want to hear something DIFFERENT of past music (primarily, US TOP 40). It IS my primary goal. Maybe if you found some alternate Take or even a demo, THEN I'd be interested. Obviously, you won't admit to thinking yours is mangled, as to admit this would be to admit that you are deliberately posting links to inferior audio solely in order to provoke a reaction on the group. The fact that you get very few comments on your posts is not endorsement f your efforts, but an indication of the effectiveness of many people's kill files. Oh, I really don't care about the silly people, they can ignore all they want, it is common in usenet. But, so far I have received some applause from outsiders, who aren't part of the "klan" here. Speaking of Jazz in a way, a couple dudes issued a Buddy Rich (drummer - my idol) CD, even had one or two "alternate" versions. You know me, I'm in favor of letting someone else remix the multi-tracks. Sadly, these two dudes made my favorite songs sound worse than on vinyl. It's funny, this sounds identical to what Mike Rivers wrote about me (from another newsgroup, recent visit)... "I don't think anyone in this newsgroup has any idea if you even like music. It just seems that you enjoy obsessing over audio-geek issues, and old hit singles are the most convenient outlet for your mania". Anyway, PEACE. Jack -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 5:12:01 PM UTC-4, Roy W. Rising wrote:
Long ago, Miss Lynn came out of Lawrence Welk's office/dressing room and blocked my path toward the stage. She tweaked my "soul patch" and said "I bet you drive the girls crazy with this". I was too young to understand what she was saying. Ah, if only I had known! I had to look-up "Soul Patch". Oh, my, I see what you mean!! Jack -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
John Williamson wrote:
The fact that you get very few comments on your posts is not endorsement f your efforts, but an indication of the effectiveness of many people's Wouldn't take much to complete that process€¦ -- don't feed the troll * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
Roy W. Rising wrote:
Long ago, Miss Lynn came out of Lawrence Welk's office/dressing room and blocked my path toward the stage. She tweaked my "soul patch" and said "I bet you drive the girls crazy with this". I was too young to understand what she was saying. Ah, if only I had known! The book, Roy, the book! ;-) -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 5:58:08 PM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
John Williamson wrote: The fact that you get very few comments on your posts is not endorsement f your efforts, but an indication of the effectiveness of many people's Wouldn't take much to complete that process... And remember when Hank was pounding his chest like Godzilla, yelling, "Mike, Scott and I" were the first ones here!!!". Like, that means something. Probably why it grows quiet, no one learns anything, no interesting Subjects. This group or more like a gossip chat room. At least I cautioned about soft soldering that Sennheiser plastic switch, while Scott probably would have set it on fire from soldering. *smile* :-) Jack -- don't feed the troll * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 4:05:16 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 30/04/2015 16:52, JackA wrote: On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 10:34:59 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote: I also note that whoever mangled your file used a dynamic range compressor set so badly that the bass is causing the vocals and all the other instruments to pump in time to the beat. The copy I have here sounds much cleaner, as it was sympathetically produced from the original studio master, and massaged gently to make it fit in with the rest of the compilation. The bass and vocals on mine also sound a *lot* cleaner, as no compression was applied to the master tape output. Mine is "mangled"? I do not think so!! But YOU could always prove me wrong! Besides, John, I don't think you can tell me one major difference between this Quad mix and the (more common) Stereo mix! I thought it was cleverly done!! Read what I posted, then go and listen intently to your version and to the original stereo mix which is available on many compilation CDs, and you will understand why I said "mangled". You will notice that the vocals and other instruments are much clearer. As both versions are available as mp3 files, it's easy to do an A - B comparison using only your media player of choice. As your searching skills seem to be severely lacking, have a catalogue number for the version I compared yours with. CBS 5360/ Pegasus PEG CD 385 Obviously, you won't admit to thinking yours is mangled, as to admit this would be to admit that you are deliberately posting links to inferior audio solely in order to provoke a reaction on the group. The fact that you get very few comments on your posts is not endorsement f your efforts, but an indication of the effectiveness of many people's kill files. -- Tciao for Now! John. First off, I don't lie. Here's the post from Robbie, not Robby... 12/09/2010... "Sounds good Uni, it totally changes the dynamics of the song. Is there any chance you could send me the whole song? My email address is valid... If you can, thanks! -- Robbie" I always enjoyed saluting music artists from usenet. Once, a name appeared in a thread, I thought someone was playing with my mind, but it was Jerry Plunk of The Flaming Ember, who had two or three US Top 40 hits!!! I THOUGHT Flaming Ember was a black group, until I bought their key album!! When I told Jerry's wife that someone credited the singing (vocals) to someone other than Jerry, she was HOT!! I feared telling her it was Joel Whitburn and he'd be beat on the head!! It makes me wonder why Cousin Brucie (Bruce Morrow) and Scott Shannon (DJs) endorse Joel's book mistakes! Are we listening, Mr. Rivers? :-) Jack |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On 4/30/2015 6:00 PM, hank alrich wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote: Long ago, Miss Lynn came out of Lawrence Welk's office/dressing room and blocked my path toward the stage. She tweaked my "soul patch" and said "I bet you drive the girls crazy with this". I was too young to understand what she was saying. Ah, if only I had known! The book, Roy, the book! ;-) +1 == Later... Ron Capik -- |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On 30/04/2015 22:48, JackA wrote:
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 4:05:16 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote: Obviously, you won't admit to thinking yours is mangled, as to admit this would be to admit that you are deliberately posting links to inferior audio solely in order to provoke a reaction on the group. The fact that you get very few comments on your posts is not endorsement f your efforts, but an indication of the effectiveness of many people's kill files. Oh, I really don't care about the silly people, they can ignore all they want, it is common in usenet. But, so far I have received some applause from outsiders, who aren't part of the "klan" here. I've had compliments about my recording and mixing, too, but the best compliment was when people paid to listen to the recording at home. Speaking of Jazz in a way, a couple dudes issued a Buddy Rich (drummer - my idol) CD, even had one or two "alternate" versions. You know me, I'm in favor of letting someone else remix the multi-tracks. Sadly, these two dudes made my favorite songs sound worse than on vinyl. There's nothing wrong with alternate versions as such, but if they're performed worse and sound worse than the "original" or released version, don't expect me to get excited about them. There's usually a good reason they've never made it into the public domain before now. For instance, I have at least four versions of "Autobahn" by Kraftwerk available to listen to and they all sound good. I've heard one or two outtakes, and it's obvious why they weren't released. The same goes for the 3 different versions of Young Love by different performers. It's funny, this sounds identical to what Mike Rivers wrote about me (from another newsgroup, recent visit)... "I don't think anyone in this newsgroup has any idea if you even like music. It just seems that you enjoy obsessing over audio-geek issues, and old hit singles are the most convenient outlet for your mania". He got that dead right. He forgot to mention your apparent deafness to faults in your re-workings, though. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On 1/05/2015 2:34 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
Audacity (Any version). Cool Edit 95. Cool Edit Pro. Adobe Audition 3. Take your pick. Click on and drag the individual samples in the waveform display. The only one I paid for was Audition, and it was worth the money for the easier workflow. Sound Forge - just freehand draw the waveform section, at any zoom level. geoff |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On 1/05/2015 4:48 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
However, CD-4 did in fact have a stereo subcarrier containing rear channel information, which gave you four discrete channels. CD-4 which (for the benefit of some here of limited knowledge) , had nothing to do with Compact Discs ! geoff |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
In article ,
Roy W. Rising wrote: I still can say "Our most-directional microphones are not unlike a fish-eye lens". When folks get that concept, the rest is easy. EV founder Lou Burroughs often said, "Start with an omni-directional mic. If you hear too much 'room', move it closer. If that doesn't work, give some thought to a 'directional' mic." Wonder when that statement was made? I started work in TV sound (UK) in 1962, and the standard boom mic then was a cardiod. And had been for several years. -- *Why do the two "sanction"s (noun and verb) mean opposites?* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 8:16:28 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 30/04/2015 22:48, JackA wrote: On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 4:05:16 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote: Obviously, you won't admit to thinking yours is mangled, as to admit this would be to admit that you are deliberately posting links to inferior audio solely in order to provoke a reaction on the group. The fact that you get very few comments on your posts is not endorsement f your efforts, but an indication of the effectiveness of many people's kill files. Oh, I really don't care about the silly people, they can ignore all they want, it is common in usenet. But, so far I have received some applause from outsiders, who aren't part of the "klan" here. I've had compliments about my recording and mixing, too, but the best compliment was when people paid to listen to the recording at home. Speaking of Jazz in a way, a couple dudes issued a Buddy Rich (drummer - my idol) CD, even had one or two "alternate" versions. You know me, I'm in favor of letting someone else remix the multi-tracks. Sadly, these two dudes made my favorite songs sound worse than on vinyl. There's nothing wrong with alternate versions as such, but if they're performed worse and sound worse than the "original" or released version, don't expect me to get excited about them. There's usually a good reason they've never made it into the public domain before now. For instance, I have at least four versions of "Autobahn" by Kraftwerk available to listen to and they all sound good. I've heard one or two outtakes, and it's obvious why they weren't released. The same goes for the 3 different versions of Young Love by different performers. It's funny, this sounds identical to what Mike Rivers wrote about me (from another newsgroup, recent visit)... "I don't think anyone in this newsgroup has any idea if you even like music. It just seems that you enjoy obsessing over audio-geek issues, and old hit singles are the most convenient outlet for your mania". He got that dead right. He forgot to mention your apparent deafness to faults in your re-workings, though. But, you didn't notice Sony (CD) marketing Quad mixes as Stereo.... http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...eride-quad.mp3 That certainly isn't the stereo mix!! But, that opens the door, what happened to all the session tapes? When Columbia sold to Sony, did a lot not make it into Sony's hands? Screw the Japanese? Granted, Columbia bought up recordings, but only ended up with the Master tapes! Like, Chi Coltrane, sounds much better from abroad (recently) than what Sony even Collectables offers. Listen to Randy's BS&T entry, a fair amount of tape hiss - sign of a worn Master tape. But, is it the Americans who Sony hired, to maintain their jobs betray other Americans while they spoon-feed you with sound quality? I say - YES! Jack -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:18:13 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 1/05/2015 2:34 a.m., John Williamson wrote: Audacity (Any version). Cool Edit 95. Cool Edit Pro. Adobe Audition 3. Take your pick. Click on and drag the individual samples in the waveform display. The only one I paid for was Audition, and it was worth the money for the easier workflow. Sound Forge - just freehand draw the waveform section, at any zoom level. geoff Sony offered Umixit software with a Billy Joel box set. I never installed/tried it, but I'm guessing it gives YOU the opportunity to mix Billy Joel songs. But, I'm sure the tracks were altered (not like Sony wants anyone competing with their competent engineers (ha!)) and I'm thinking you could not save your work/mixes! However, it was nice to find Billy's songs as multi-tracks in public domain. Jack |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
Recent e-mail: "I especially like the extended "Rose Garden"". Court adorned! :-) Jack now there's a Freudian typo Mark |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:39:21 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Recent e-mail: "I especially like the extended "Rose Garden"". Court adorned! :-) Jack now there's a Freudian typo Mark Your honor, I blame that error on Mr. Williamson. Maybe one day he'll bring his sound quality extravaganza to the table so we can judge it. I rest my case. Jack |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On 01/05/2015 14:56, JackA wrote:
On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:39:21 AM UTC-4, wrote: Recent e-mail: "I especially like the extended "Rose Garden"". Court adorned! :-) Jack now there's a Freudian typo Mark Your honor, I blame that error on Mr. Williamson. Maybe one day he'll bring his sound quality extravaganza to the table so we can judge it. I rest my case. He has, but if you can't be bothered to look through the group's posts for the link given to my work, that's your problem. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
geoff wrote:
On 1/05/2015 4:48 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote: However, CD-4 did in fact have a stereo subcarrier containing rear channel information, which gave you four discrete channels. CD-4 which (for the benefit of some here of limited knowledge) , had nothing to do with Compact Discs ! Interestingly there WAS a quadrophonic disc format in the Red Book standard. I don't think anyone ever implemented it. It would have been much more useful to put a mono format in there as well, for 148 mono minutes on a disc. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/05/2015 14:56, JackA wrote: On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:39:21 AM UTC-4, wrote: Recent e-mail: "I especially like the extended "Rose Garden"". Court adorned! :-) Jack now there's a Freudian typo Mark Your honor, I blame that error on Mr. Williamson. Maybe one day he'll bring his sound quality extravaganza to the table so we can judge it. I rest my case. He has, but if you can't be bothered to look through the group's posts for the link given to my work, that's your problem. I notice a sour tone in your vocals. Maybe you need to be remixed!! Lighten up, John!! Jack -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Roy W. Rising wrote: I still can say "Our most-directional microphones are not unlike a fish-eye lens". When folks get that concept, the rest is easy. EV founder Lou Burroughs often said, "Start with an omni-directional mic. If you hear too much 'room', move it closer. If that doesn't work, give some thought to a 'directional' mic." Wonder when that statement was made? I started work in TV sound (UK) in 1962, and the standard boom mic then was a cardiod. And had been for several years. That is because on a boom there is always too much room sound because you can never move it close enough. That's not the fault of the mike, that is the fault of those cameras. Here in the US the standard boom mike was probably an EV DL42 which was supposedly more directional than a cardioid. It was... pretty awful. I never understood how guys like Roy could get anything decent out of them but they did. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote: Wonder when that statement was made? I started work in TV sound (UK) in 1962, and the standard boom mic then was a cardiod. And had been for several years. That is because on a boom there is always too much room sound because you can never move it close enough. That's not the fault of the mike, that is the fault of those cameras. I take it you've never operated a boom? ;-) Here in the US the standard boom mike was probably an EV DL42 which was supposedly more directional than a cardioid. It was... pretty awful. I never understood how guys like Roy could get anything decent out of them but they did. --scott Yes - the standard here in the early days was an STC 4033. A matrix of omni and ribbon to produce the cardiod. -- *(on a baby-size shirt) "Party -- my crib -- two a.m Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On 2/05/2015 12:15 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Interestingly there WAS a quadrophonic disc format in the Red Book standard. I don't think anyone ever implemented it. It would have been much more useful to put a mono format in there as well, for 148 mono minutes on a disc. Doesn't need to be part of the Red Book standard since ANY CD can already contain 150+ mono minutes. What is required is all at the playback end if you want either channel to play through both speakers. And more player smarts of course if you want 150 minutes without user intervention to start the disc again and swap channels. Very simple programming if you play it from a computer though, but hardly any point when you can have over 20 mono MP3 hours on a single data disk now. Or almost a lifetime on a single hard drive. Of course there was never any demand for longer mono CD's or it would have been done before MP3 was even invented. In fact what we got was the Beatles mono LP's issued on 25 minute CD's to make as much profit as possible, and to hell with the user who would have preferred at least 2 albums per CD to save swapping disks, but may have baulked at paying twice the price per disk. :-( Trevor. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 12:59:46 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 2/05/2015 12:15 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: Interestingly there WAS a quadrophonic disc format in the Red Book standard. I don't think anyone ever implemented it. It would have been much more useful to put a mono format in there as well, for 148 mono minutes on a disc. Doesn't need to be part of the Red Book standard since ANY CD can already contain 150+ mono minutes. What is required is all at the playback end if you want either channel to play through both speakers. And more player smarts of course if you want 150 minutes without user intervention to start the disc again and swap channels. Very simple programming if you play it from a computer though, but hardly any point when you can have over 20 mono MP3 hours on a single data disk now. Or almost a lifetime on a single hard drive. Of course there was never any demand for longer mono CD's or it would have been done before MP3 was even invented. In fact what we got was the Beatles mono LP's issued on 25 minute CD's to make as much profit as possible, and to hell with the user who would have preferred at least 2 albums per CD to save swapping disks, but may have baulked at paying twice the price per disk. :-( Interesting! Always wondered why HD Radio didn't do this, split two channel stereo broadcast to two monophonic radio channels. Was told the limitation of HD Radio is the combined bandwidth of all channels, music and talk. Good thing Len Barry moved from the Cameo-Parkway label, otherwise this would have been monophonic!! Monophonic can be best described as a caveman beating on a hollowed log!!. With count-off!..... http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/123.mp3 Jack Trevor. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Quadraphonic vs Surrond Sound
Quad and the original Dolby Stereo(Dolby Surround
for the home) were joined at the hip with their matrix- based encoding: Mono signals of opposite pha-AHEM - polarity would be routed to the rear/surround speakers. The system also had some way of minimizing the routing of ordinary stereo difference(between a guitar panned to one side and a keyboard to the other) to those surround speakers. Mono signals of same polarity left to right would head straight for the center(dialog) stack(Dolby). |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: Quadraphonic LP collection + | Marketplace | |||
Pioneer QX-949 Quadraphonic Receiver | Marketplace | |||
5.1 Surrond Sound | Tech | |||
quadraphonic equipment question | General | |||
FA Panasonic quadraphonic demod. SE-405 | Marketplace |