[Randy Yates[_2_]]

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"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.

Randy Yates

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[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?

That does sound nice, Randy.

While at a Wal-Mart, years back, I found a "new" Glen Campbell CD album, with Bonus tracks - some of his past song remixed/remastered. The remixes made my ears puke, I think that song was included. Later, I went online and while it was difficult to find reviews of the remixes, since it was a Wal-Mart exclusive CD, some were complaining about the foul sound quality of the new album tracks.

Jack


--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
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 noticed this effect with some 1958 Marty Paich recordings. I also observe
some very specific placement of the various sections, not some vague wash or
"wall of sound" where you play where's the piano, or guitar or whatever.
Number two, as with having a full range of values in photography, a
well-balanced full frequency range is very satisfying, as opposed to
overemphasized bass range.

Gary Eickmeier

[geoff]

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.

geoff

[John Williamson]

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.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

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.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

John Williamson writes:

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?

I was referring to the overall mix and quality. I agree the audio in many youtube
posts is appalling, but not this one. Did you listen to it?

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

Count me in, because I do think this one sounds good.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[John Williamson]

On 18/04/2015 13:28, Randy Yates wrote:
John Williamson writes:

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?

I was referring to the overall mix and quality. I agree the audio in many youtube
posts is appalling, but not this one. Did you listen to it?

The mix is good, as are the performance and the original recording, but
the sound on the clip you linked to is about cassette quality. The
performance is good enough to shine through Youtube's data compression,
I'll grant you that, but I could hear compression artifacts and other
glitches even on the laptop speakers.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

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.

One of the aspects of a successful recording is its ability to withstand
the many kinds of damage done "downstream" of the original format. Perhaps
there should be a "Survivability Quotient" or such.

When you notice through the window that your neighbors' garage is burning
down, you don't see how dirty the window is. Your are looking *through*
the window. Hearing a decent sound on YouTube reflects listening *through*
the layers of degradation that have been added. Here's one I did in 1970.
It is a single take, live to Videotape. It seems to hold up OK. The 1/4"
mono audiotape of it sounds better, but this will have to do for now:

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

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

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

John Williamson writes:

On 18/04/2015 13:28, Randy Yates wrote:
John Williamson writes:

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?

I was referring to the overall mix and quality. I agree the audio in many youtube
posts is appalling, but not this one. Did you listen to it?

The mix is good, as are the performance and the original recording,
but the sound on the clip you linked to is about cassette quality. The
performance is good enough to shine through Youtube's data
compression, I'll grant you that, but I could hear compression
artifacts and other glitches even on the laptop speakers.

I don't categorize it as "not even slightly good."

Here is a (reportedly) flac version to compa

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

This does sound much different, generally clearer. But it does sound a
good bit "duller" (highs equalized?) from the original version I posted.
I like it better, though.

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?
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[[email protected]]

In my opinion,
Many older recording sound good because back then
the equipment WAS good enough to make good recordings
and also the arrangements and performances were excellent.

Today the equipment has too many bells and whistles
and less emphasis is placed on the material.


The main reason is that most recordings today
Are over processed, specifically dynamic range is overly
Compressed.

Mark
..
..

[[email protected]]

5:21 wrote
"In my opinion...

Today the equipment has too many bells and whistles
and less emphasis is placed on the material. "

More opportunities to EFF it up in post.

"The main reason is that most recordings today
Are over processed, specifically dynamic range is overly
Compressed.

Mark "

Your "opinion"??? What you stated were facts!

The key is determining who to blame - and to explain to
them that what those clients are demanding doesn't work.

[None]

wrote in message
...
The key is determining who to blame - and to explain to
them that what those clients are demanding doesn't work.

Yeah, get right on that. Blame. Explain. Complain. How that working
out for you?

[[email protected]]

STOP DERAILING THE CONVERSATION WITH
YOUR NAME-CALLING AND GENERAL NASTINESS!!


WHAT DID I EVER DO TO YOU TO DESERVE THIS
TREATMENT?


Like I previously said, I pray in JESUS CHRIST'S
name that you get back, TEN TIMES OVER, the CRAP
you've dished out on me over the last three years,
and see how YOU like it!


Because I tracked your usenet activity back a decade,
and I found ZERO instances of anyone berating you
the way you have done me, despite your statements
to the contrary.

[None]

wrote in message
...
STOP DERAILING THE CONVERSATION WITH
YOUR NAME-CALLING AND GENERAL NASTINESS!!


WHAT DID I EVER DO TO YOU TO DESERVE THIS
TREATMENT?


Like I previously said, I pray in JESUS CHRIST'S
name that you get back, TEN TIMES OVER, the CRAP
you've dished out on me over the last three years,
and see how YOU like it!


Because I tracked your usenet activity back a decade,
and I found ZERO instances of anyone berating you
the way you have done me, despite your statements
to the contrary.

So, how's that working out for you?

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"None" wrote:
wrote in message
...
STOP DERAILING THE CONVERSATION WITH
YOUR NAME-CALLING AND GENERAL NASTINESS!!


WHAT DID I EVER DO TO YOU TO DESERVE THIS
TREATMENT?


Like I previously said, I pray in JESUS CHRIST'S
name that you get back, TEN TIMES OVER, the CRAP
you've dished out on me over the last three years,
and see how YOU like it!


Because I tracked your usenet activity back a decade,
and I found ZERO instances of anyone berating you
the way you have done me, despite your statements
to the contrary.

So, how's that working out for you?


I, for one, am saddened to see this thread go the way of so many others.

Here's a request: If you have a problem with anything not relevant to the
intent of the Original Poster, THIS is NOT the place to tell us what you
think to the OP meant. Please address the the Original Topic.

Can anyone suggest a group where those with more to say might vent?

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

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

writes:

In my opinion,
Many older recording sound good because back then
the equipment WAS good enough to make good recordings
and also the arrangements and performances were excellent.

Today the equipment has too many bells and whistles
and less emphasis is placed on the material.


The main reason is that most recordings today
Are over processed, specifically dynamic range is overly
Compressed.

I suspect you are very close, if not right on, the mark, Mark!
Especially the arrangements/performances. Also the dynamic
range/compression observation sounds about right. Look at what we've
lost in the process. Sad.

There's also the economics. Why is it that in 1968 recording labels
could afford a small orchestra for a recording such as this but today
it's prohibitively expensive?
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Luxey]

Tere's no FLAC on youtube, everything on youtube is recompressed to their format.
It's all up to source material one is uploading, because it all ends as some
128kbps AAC.

BTW, maybe I've mentioned that already, I found it's te best option to let
Youtube take care of compression, ie. make the clips and upload them with WAV sound. Seams YT compressors are bit better than what average software can offer and even then, whatever you do, it will be recompressed again, anyway, ... so ..
leave it losless (wav) and let YT do the thing.

[[email protected]]

Luxey:


Near as I can tell YouTube may perform data compression(for
bandwidth purposes) but not dynamic.


Will this confusion of DATA compression with DYNAMIC compression
ever end??

[None]

wrote in message
...
Luxey:
Near as I can tell YouTube may perform data compression (for
bandwidth purposes) but not dynamic.

Will this confusion of DATA compression with DYNAMIC compression
ever end??

Who's confused (other than you)?

[[email protected]]

wrote in message
...
- show quoted text -
Who's confused (other than you)? "


I said STAY OUT!!! STOP POLLUTING THE THREAD
WITH YOUR NEGATIVITY. JESUS melt and remake what's left
of your heart!

[None]

thekma @gmail.com wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
- show quoted text -
Who's confused (other than you)? "


I said STAY OUT!!! STOP POLLUTING THE THREAD
WITH YOUR NEGATIVITY. JESUS melt and remake what's left
of your heart!

Lighten up, Francis.

[[email protected]]

DEVIL BEGONE FROM N's BRAIN!

JESUS, REVEAL N's TRUE IDENTITY!!

[None]

thekma @gmail.com wrote in message
...
DEVIL BEGONE FROM N's BRAIN!

JESUS, REVEAL N's TRUE IDENTITY!!

Lighten up, Pope Francis.

[None]

wrote in message
...
DEVIL BEGONE FROM N's BRAIN!

JESUS, REVEAL N's TRUE IDENTITY!!

My name is Nomen Nescio. Do always scream when you pray to Devil and
Jesus?

[[email protected]]

HOLY GHOST, allow words only of encouragement,
guidance, and positivity to flow from N's lips!!

If YOU are for me, then no one of this Earth can
be against me!! Bend every knee, shatter all
strongholds and barriers to understanding.

And save ME from falling into the same trap
of mean-spiritedness! Amen!

[geoff]

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

[John Williamson]

On 19/04/2015 03:27, wrote:
HOLY GHOST, allow words only of encouragement,
guidance, and positivity to flow from N's lips!!

If YOU are for me, then no one of this Earth can
be against me!! Bend every knee, shatter all
strongholds and barriers to understanding.

And save ME from falling into the same trap
of mean-spiritedness! Amen!

You could always try refraining from posting your usual completely
nonsensical rubbish, then nobody would need to contradict it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "You could always try refraining
from posting your usual completely nonsensical rubbish,
then nobody would need to contradict it. "


Until you cite EXAMPLES of my *alleged* rubbish, I
stand vindicated.

I.E.: "Well Kmanrocks, your previous blaming the
loudness war on mastering engineers was nonsense,
but at least now you acknowledge one correct source
for it."

Like that! Is that so difficult to do? Instead of just
broadly brush-stroking my contributions as "rubbish"
or branding me a troll or other nasty names. Help
a brother! It'll make you feel better too, instead
of bitter.

[[email protected]]

Nomen Nescio is simply latin for "name unknown".

Well, until Nomen reveals his true identity on here,
as he has mine without authorization, I suggest
we all give him the silent treatment until he changes
his attitude and tone toward others on here.

The same goes for anyone who engages him
or echoes his behavior.

I've already prayed for him - both on here and in
my heart, so it's now up to God.

[geoff]

On 19/04/2015 10:19 p.m., wrote:
Nomen Nescio is simply latin for "name unknown".

Well, until Nomen reveals his true identity on here,
as he has mine without authorization, I suggest
we all give him the silent treatment until he changes
his attitude and tone toward others on here.

The same goes for anyone who engages him
or echoes his behavior.

I've already prayed for him - both on here and in
my heart, so it's now up to God.



But which one ?

geoff

[None]

thekma @gmail.com wrote in message
...
I suggest we all give him the silent treatment

Is that why you keep screaming at me?

[None]

wrote in message
...
Until you cite EXAMPLES of my *alleged* rubbish, I stand vindicated.

How does that RE15 condenser sound without phantom power? Does it
sound like a dead hobby horse? How do you vindicate a dead horse?

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

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

[Luxey]

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.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Randy Yates wrote:
writes:

In my opinion,
Many older recording sound good because back then
the equipment WAS good enough to make good recordings
and also the arrangements and performances were excellent.

Today the equipment has too many bells and whistles
and less emphasis is placed on the material.


The main reason is that most recordings today
Are over processed, specifically dynamic range is overly
Compressed.

I suspect you are very close, if not right on, the mark, Mark!
Especially the arrangements/performances. Also the dynamic
range/compression observation sounds about right. Look at what we've
lost in the process. Sad.

There's also the economics. Why is it that in 1968 recording labels
could afford a small orchestra for a recording such as this but today
it's prohibitively expensive?



In 1968, the only two things you could buy and take home were sheet
music and vinyl records.

In 1968 the networks could afford to give Glen Campbell a variety
television show. Campbell himself, in an interview, said that it
would now cost not just too much, but *way* too much.

So probably for the same basic reasons.

Broadway shows, movies, even books seem to be the same. There's
a bio film of Robert Altman - titled "Altman" - where you can
track this in movies over the years. So Altman reinvented indie films
because he'd managed to have a network of people who could accommodate
lower financed projects.

People like Louis C.K. have now refined this to where it costs very
little to make something, but you can't do that in a normal fashion.

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.

But it's also because there so much more money sloshing around
that the perceived risk is too high.

--
Les Cargill

[Luxey]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

Mark

[hank alrich]

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.

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