[hank alrich]

None wrote:

Does it sound like a dead hobby horse? How do you vindicate a dead horse?

Feed it rolled boats.


--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

writes:

On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 8:00:43 AM UTC-4, Luxey wrote:
недеља, 19. април 2015. 13.08.48 UTC+2, Randy Yates је напи�ао/ла:
geoff writes:

On 19/04/2015 7:42 a.m., Randy Yates wrote:


In any case, the original version was certainly good enough to represent
the qualities which were the object of my post. Can we get past this
nit-picking and to the recording and mixing issues I'm bringing up?


A good simple clear recording without clutter. A good wide frequency
range, which is just as well otherwise the acoustic bass would
probably not come through much at all.

geoff,

I'm pretty sure that's an electric bass there. I think the other points
are correct.

I haven't given enough emphasis to what is probably the main reasons:
talented musicians, a beautiful arrangement, and a talented singer.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

There are 2 basses in there.

The reason it sounds so good is they've used every production and recording trick
known to men, at the time, to make it better.

also it seems to me in that particular
recording, some of the tracks are hard panned
left or right which was popular in early stereo.

I think hard panning is a good technique that has lost favor
for some reason.

Good point, Mark, and I agree (although I'm no recording
engineer/mastering engineer).
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[JackA]

On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 3:05:34 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 18/04/2015 05:54, Randy Yates wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg

The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?

I take it you're referring to the original sounding good, not the
Youtube version you link to?

Anyone who thinks that Youtube sound is even slightly good needs their
hearing tested.

If you have better, I'd love to hear it! :-)

Jack

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 4:53:42 PM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
Randy Yates wrote:

geoff writes:

On 18/04/2015 5:07 p.m., Peter Larsen wrote:
"Randy Yates" skrev i en meddelelse
...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg

The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?

Hollywood sound stage and crew suspected as cause. It has all the
characteristics of Janis Ians first album. I am always amazed that it
is not included in what the audiophiles bawk on about, if they knew
(audio) they should.

It always was. I have half-speed -mastere, or Practical Hifi (or
something) 'Supercut' version of this.

You mean Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs' half-speed master of the vinyl?
Cool. I used to buy those when they were available and I could afford
it; I believe I had the Al Stewart "Year of the Cat" album in a
half-speed master.

One of the foundiers of MFSL used to post here a long time back. Smart
guy.

If so smart, I'm curious why he sold out? Maybe because he knew session tapes would soon surface, exceeding the sound of "master" tapes? Whoever is currently behind of MFSL label, is desperate for money, especially when they select The Raspberries to publish as audiophile recordings.

Jack'

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[JackA]

On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 12:54:45 AM UTC-4, Randy Yates wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg

The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

And, you are correct, recording studio time costs $$$ and paying musicians with real talent also costs $$$, especially Take after Take after Take.

Odd that I have yet to hear/find ANY Glen Campbell outtakes.

Just to avoid studio costs, John Cougar recorded one or more albums in his sister's barn.

Jack

[John Williamson]

On 20/04/2015 00:12, JackA wrote:
On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 3:05:34 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 18/04/2015 05:54, Randy Yates wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg

The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?

I take it you're referring to the original sounding good, not the
Youtube version you link to?

Anyone who thinks that Youtube sound is even slightly good needs their
hearing tested.

If you have better, I'd love to hear it! :-)

Just listen to anything you hear on Youtube in the original format, and
you'll hear the difference. Even the remastered CDs you hate so much
sound better than Youbend audio.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 11:20:51 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 20/04/2015 00:12, JackA wrote:
On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 3:05:34 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 18/04/2015 05:54, Randy Yates wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg

The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?

I take it you're referring to the original sounding good, not the
Youtube version you link to?

Anyone who thinks that Youtube sound is even slightly good needs their
hearing tested.

If you have better, I'd love to hear it! :-)

Just listen to anything you hear on Youtube in the original format, and
you'll hear the difference. Even the remastered CDs you hate so much
sound better than Youbend audio.

Can you be more specific and point me to the exact CD that you feel sounds superior to what Randy posted?

Jack



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Edi Zubovic]

On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 08:28:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


also it seems to me in that particular
recording, some of the tracks are hard panned
left or right which was popular in early stereo.

I think hard panning is a good technique that has lost favor
for some reason.

Mark

-- Yes they are, more to left than to right in this recording. You
were limited by record cutting process and wrong panninng almost
unnoticed today would wreck the cut. And stereo had to be clearly
audible
But otherwise, the performance, arrangement and live performers ("The
Wrecking Crew"?) are someting I sure miss nowadays. Granted, it's
expensive but it cannot be subsituted by anything.
Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

[geoff]

On 19/04/2015 11:08 p.m., Randy Yates wrote:
geoff writes:

On 19/04/2015 7:42 a.m., Randy Yates wrote:


In any case, the original version was certainly good enough to represent
the qualities which were the object of my post. Can we get past this
nit-picking and to the recording and mixing issues I'm bringing up?


A good simple clear recording without clutter. A good wide frequency
range, which is just as well otherwise the acoustic bass would
probably not come through much at all.

geoff,

I'm pretty sure that's an electric bass there. I think the other points
are correct.

I haven't given enough emphasis to what is probably the main reasons:
talented musicians, a beautiful arrangement, and a talented singer.


Ooops - I'd moved on to Janis Ian ! Specifically 'Between The Lines'.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 20/04/2015 04:50, JackA wrote:
Just listen to anything you hear on Youtube in the original format, and
you'll hear the difference. Even the remastered CDs you hate so much
sound better than Youbend audio.

Can you be more specific and point me to the exact CD that you feel sounds superior to what Randy posted?

Any CD featuring that track.

Maybe this one, if you're quick and beat everyone else to the last one
in stock:-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wichita-Line...550/ref=sr_1_2

However, given your proved hearing problems, maybe you'd have trouble
telling the difference. You may prefer the MP3 download, which is easily
found on Amazon or iTunes.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 4:25:08 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 20/04/2015 04:50, JackA wrote:
Just listen to anything you hear on Youtube in the original format, and
you'll hear the difference. Even the remastered CDs you hate so much
sound better than Youbend audio.

Can you be more specific and point me to the exact CD that you feel sounds superior to what Randy posted?

Any CD featuring that track.

Maybe this one, if you're quick and beat everyone else to the last one
in stock:-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wichita-Line...550/ref=sr_1_2

However, given your proved hearing problems, maybe you'd have trouble
telling the difference. You may prefer the MP3 download, which is easily
found on Amazon or iTunes.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

My hearing problem? Your reading problem...

Review #1
"Some tracks are quite different from the studio versions".

Review #2
"This CD is Glen Campbell in concert LIVE in Concert NOT what I wanted".

I knew you'd fizzle out!

Jack :-)

[Scott Dorsey]

Randy Yates wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg

The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?

It's a group sitting together in one room. The string section is tightly
spotted but it's real musicians sitting in a room with charts in front
of them.

The arrangement is tight; the strings underlay everything, but careful
space is made for the vocals and the drums are minimal but right on.

You can still record like this now, but the problems you run into are
mostly a result of the fact that people don't do it any more.

Back in the seventies, you could call over to the union and say "send over
a string section" and they'd send over a bunch of guys who had been playing
together for years and probably had been playing with the other guys you
called. So they were tight, and they could sit down and play the charts
and then go home.

The problem is not that the top-notch performers don't exist, there are
still plenty of them. You can still get them. The problem is that there
aren't enough gigs for them in one place... so they aren't all in Nashville
and LA any longer, and you are going to have to pay to fly them in.

The studio I worked for in Atlanta had a regular customer in an elevator
music company. They'd come into the studio once a week with a bunch of
charts and a bunch of musicians. The musicians would sit down and play
the charts, then collect a check and go off to the next gig. You'd go to
the symphony and see the same performers that yesterday were in the string
section with the pop group and tomorrow will be doing Muzak. So you had
guys who were always working, who didn't need to make a huge amount of
money off of one gig, and who were at the top of their form because they
were always in practice.

MIDI put most of those guys out on the street.

Same goes for the room... if you want to track a band together, you need a
good room where they can hear themselves and hear the room and where the
room goes onto tape as well. Most of those really good studios are closed
now, because people don't record that way anymore.

So, the kind of job that was a routine everyday job back then now becomes
a very expensive exercise in logistics.

It's nice, though, that people do still occasionally do real sessions that
way. Check out the soundtrack album for The Incredibles.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill wrote:

If I had to guess, I'd say it's likely just due to Baumol Cost Disease.
At least that's what I read into Zappa's experience with the London
Symphony Orchestra.

It's interesting, though, that a union call in London will get you a
pickup orchestra that is 75% of the LSO for a tiny fraction of the cost
of the LSO. Zappa was in part paying for the name and the cat-herding.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Edi Zubovic edi.zubovic[rem wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 08:28:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

also it seems to me in that particular
recording, some of the tracks are hard panned
left or right which was popular in early stereo.

I think hard panning is a good technique that has lost favor
for some reason.

-- Yes they are, more to left than to right in this recording. You
were limited by record cutting process and wrong panninng almost
unnoticed today would wreck the cut. And stereo had to be clearly
audible

In the seventies, a lot of people were listening on portable stereo
phonographs, or on all-in-one console hi-fi sets, with the speakers
fairly close together and very limited imaging. In the eighties
they were listening on boom boxes with similar problems. So there was
a definite argument in favor of exaggerated panning, to compensate for
this.

These days so many people are listening either on headphones or on
desktop "multimedia systems" with the speakers on either side of their
head. So today we have something of the opposite push to collapse the
image so the hole in the middle is reduced for these people.

But otherwise, the performance, arrangement and live performers ("The
Wrecking Crew"?) are someting I sure miss nowadays. Granted, it's
expensive but it cannot be subsituted by anything.

Sigh. Hey, are you going to be in Warsaw next month, Edi?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Edi Zubovic]

On 20 Apr 2015 10:50:09 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Edi Zubovic edi.zubovic[rem wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 08:28:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

also it seems to me in that particular
recording, some of the tracks are hard panned
left or right which was popular in early stereo.

I think hard panning is a good technique that has lost favor
for some reason.

-- Yes they are, more to left than to right in this recording. You
were limited by record cutting process and wrong panninng almost
unnoticed today would wreck the cut. And stereo had to be clearly
audible

In the seventies, a lot of people were listening on portable stereo
phonographs, or on all-in-one console hi-fi sets, with the speakers
fairly close together and very limited imaging. In the eighties
they were listening on boom boxes with similar problems. So there was
a definite argument in favor of exaggerated panning, to compensate for
this.

These days so many people are listening either on headphones or on
desktop "multimedia systems" with the speakers on either side of their
head. So today we have something of the opposite push to collapse the
image so the hole in the middle is reduced for these people.

But otherwise, the performance, arrangement and live performers ("The
Wrecking Crew"?) are someting I sure miss nowadays. Granted, it's
expensive but it cannot be subsituted by anything.

Sigh. Hey, are you going to be in Warsaw next month, Edi?
--scott

Sadly no, Scott. I wish I would, I'm sure I would have the pleasure of
meeting you in persona...

So I'll wait as always for your great reports.

Edi Zubovic,m Crikvenica, Croatia

[John Williamson]

On 20/04/2015 11:37, JackA wrote:
On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 4:25:08 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 20/04/2015 04:50, JackA wrote:
Just listen to anything you hear on Youtube in the original format, and
you'll hear the difference. Even the remastered CDs you hate so much
sound better than Youbend audio.

Can you be more specific and point me to the exact CD that you feel sounds superior to what Randy posted?

Any CD featuring that track.

Maybe this one, if you're quick and beat everyone else to the last one
in stock:-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wichita-Line...550/ref=sr_1_2

However, given your proved hearing problems, maybe you'd have trouble
telling the difference. You may prefer the MP3 download, which is easily
found on Amazon or iTunes.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

My hearing problem? Your reading problem...


I knew you'd fizzle out!

From my collection, the CD this Youtube track was originally ripped from:-

Sony Music Entertainment (UK) Ltd. SONYTV67CD


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 4:18:13 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 20/04/2015 11:37, JackA wrote:
On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 4:25:08 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 20/04/2015 04:50, JackA wrote:
Just listen to anything you hear on Youtube in the original format, and
you'll hear the difference. Even the remastered CDs you hate so much
sound better than Youbend audio.

Can you be more specific and point me to the exact CD that you feel sounds superior to what Randy posted?

Any CD featuring that track.

Maybe this one, if you're quick and beat everyone else to the last one
in stock:-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wichita-Line...550/ref=sr_1_2

However, given your proved hearing problems, maybe you'd have trouble
telling the difference. You may prefer the MP3 download, which is easily
found on Amazon or iTunes.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

My hearing problem? Your reading problem...


I knew you'd fizzle out!

From my collection, the CD this Youtube track was originally ripped from:-

Sony Music Entertainment (UK) Ltd. SONYTV67CD


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Okay, I'll leave you off the hook this time....
http://www.discogs.com/Various-Music...elease/2577105

Thanks!!

Jack

[John Williamson]

On 20/04/2015 22:09, JackA wrote:
Okay, I'll leave you off the hook this time....
http://www.discogs.com/Various-Music...elease/2577105

Got it already, thanks. ;-)


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 5:29:37 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 20/04/2015 22:09, JackA wrote:
Okay, I'll leave you off the hook this time....
http://www.discogs.com/Various-Music...elease/2577105

Got it already, thanks. ;-)

FUNNY!!!

I can't find any audiophile CDs. Elliot has a 1/2 Mastered LP. I want HQ sound!!

I've seen that CD before :-)

Jack


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Randy Yates wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg

The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?

It's a group sitting together in one room. The string section is tightly
spotted but it's real musicians sitting in a room with charts in front
of them.

The arrangement is tight; the strings underlay everything, but careful
space is made for the vocals and the drums are minimal but right on.

You can still record like this now, but the problems you run into are
mostly a result of the fact that people don't do it any more.

Back in the seventies, you could call over to the union and say "send over
a string section" and they'd send over a bunch of guys who had been playing
together for years and probably had been playing with the other guys you
called. So they were tight, and they could sit down and play the charts
and then go home.

The problem is not that the top-notch performers don't exist, there are
still plenty of them. You can still get them. The problem is that there
aren't enough gigs for them in one place... so they aren't all in Nashville
and LA any longer, and you are going to have to pay to fly them in.

The studio I worked for in Atlanta had a regular customer in an elevator
music company. They'd come into the studio once a week with a bunch of
charts and a bunch of musicians. The musicians would sit down and play
the charts, then collect a check and go off to the next gig. You'd go to
the symphony and see the same performers that yesterday were in the string
section with the pop group and tomorrow will be doing Muzak. So you had
guys who were always working, who didn't need to make a huge amount of
money off of one gig, and who were at the top of their form because they
were always in practice.

MIDI put most of those guys out on the street.



MIDI could not compete with that until around 1998-2000, whenever the
really good software samplers came online ( Gigasampler ).

Yeah, you could use a Kurzweil or something before that but
it's not even nearly the same.

Same goes for the room... if you want to track a band together, you need a
good room where they can hear themselves and hear the room and where the
room goes onto tape as well. Most of those really good studios are closed
now, because people don't record that way anymore.

So, the kind of job that was a routine everyday job back then now becomes
a very expensive exercise in logistics.

It's nice, though, that people do still occasionally do real sessions that
way. Check out the soundtrack album for The Incredibles.
--scott


--
Les Cargill

[MG[_4_]]

"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
...

John Williamson wrote:
On 18/04/2015 05:54, Randy Yates wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg

The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?

I take it you're referring to the original sounding good, not the
Youtube version you link to?

Anyone who thinks that Youtube sound is even slightly good needs their
hearing tested.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rgL...rgLd6A0DWM#t=2

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

Roy, I really admire the work you've shared. You were lucky to be able to
do the stuff you did.

mg