Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW
geoff wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06tvgp1 geoff The bit involves a lot of use of terms like "intent" and "preference." I remember the pianos from all those Brubeck records. That's pretty much canonical now - people may not squeeze them that much, but it's still a thing. I can't reliably tell 320 KBPS mp3 from full linear. Perhaps that's just a lack of training. Perhaps it's the playback chain. But in this day and age, 320 is affordable for most connections. -- Les Cargill |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW
geoff wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06tvgp1 geoff The world would be an infinitesimally nicer place if dynamic range reduction and file size reduction didn't both use the same term "compression". |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW
On 09/01/2016 23:56, Ralph Barone wrote:
geoff wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06tvgp1 geoff The world would be an infinitesimally nicer place if dynamic range reduction and file size reduction didn't both use the same term "compression". Certainly less misunderstood. The programme didn't even mention data compression, apart from it's effect on delivery systems. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW
Les Cargill wrote: "I can't reliably tell 320 KBPS mp3 from full linear. Perhaps that's
just a lack of training. Perhaps it's the playback chain. But in this day and age, 320 is affordable for most connections. " Again, post processing will have far more audible impact than method of conveyance(physical, stream, etc), bit depth, sampling rate, or lossy vs lossless. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW
On 10/01/2016 1:06 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 09/01/2016 23:56, Ralph Barone wrote: geoff wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06tvgp1 geoff The world would be an infinitesimally nicer place if dynamic range reduction and file size reduction didn't both use the same term "compression". Certainly less misunderstood. The programme didn't even mention data compression, apart from it's effect on delivery systems. An unfortunate oversight. But even "data compression:" is not consice. Data compression is lossless (ie FLAC, WavZip of old, or simply Zip). What they (and most others) refer to as data compression is actually "data reduction". geoff |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW
On 10/01/2016 10:56 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
geoff wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06tvgp1 The world would be an infinitesimally nicer place if dynamic range reduction and file size reduction didn't both use the same term "compression". I guess you better not talk about internal combustion engines either then. :-) The simple fact is it is up to the writer to explain what he is talking about, and the reader to make an attempt at understanding what is written. Both seem to be lacking in many cases unfortunately. Inventing more words they don't understand is not going to help them. Trevor. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW
On 10/01/2016 2:18 PM, geoff wrote:
On 10/01/2016 1:06 PM, John Williamson wrote: On 09/01/2016 23:56, Ralph Barone wrote: geoff wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06tvgp1 The world would be an infinitesimally nicer place if dynamic range reduction and file size reduction didn't both use the same term "compression". Certainly less misunderstood. The programme didn't even mention data compression, apart from it's effect on delivery systems. An unfortunate oversight. But even "data compression:" is not consice. Data compression is lossless (ie FLAC, WavZip of old, or simply Zip). What they (and most others) refer to as data compression is actually "data reduction". Not exactly, data compression may be either lossy or lossless. Even "data reduction" is not completely clear, as lossless data compression still results in a reduction of file data, if not recovered data. One simply must use enough words to make the intention clear when it is deemed important enough. Trevor. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW
On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 23:56:15 GMT, Ralph Barone
wrote: geoff wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06tvgp1 geoff The world would be an infinitesimally nicer place if dynamic range reduction and file size reduction didn't both use the same term "compression". The programme would have done well not to mention data compression at all. It didn't contribute materially, and served only to introduce some confusion. d --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
Ralph Barone wrote:
The world would be an infinitesimally nicer place if dynamic range reduction and file size reduction didn't both use the same term "compression". layman here... I've always thought 'compression' as part of the recording process is also misleading (ie. it would be a third meaning), as it leaves the initial attack alone and only reduces what comes after the attack. Or is my understanding wrong? |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 11:36:40 +0000, Luigi wrote:
Ralph Barone wrote: The world would be an infinitesimally nicer place if dynamic range reduction and file size reduction didn't both use the same term "compression". layman here... I've always thought 'compression' as part of the recording process is also misleading (ie. it would be a third meaning), as it leaves the initial attack alone and only reduces what comes after the attack. Or is my understanding wrong? Compression is whatever you make it. If the final dynamic range is reduced, you have compression - there is nothing intrinsic that tells you how it must be done. That would be an "artistic" choice. d --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW
On 1/9/2016 10:18 PM, geoff wrote:
But even "data compression:" is not consice. Data compression is lossless (ie FLAC, WavZip of old, or simply Zip). What they (and most others) refer to as data compression is actually "data reduction". But "data reduction" is the process of sorting out data and making sense of it. In physics class in high school (1959) the teacher always said "and now let's do the data reduction." -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
Don Pearce wrote:
layman here... I've always thought 'compression' as part of the recording process is also misleading (ie. it would be a third meaning), as it leaves the initial attack alone and only reduces what comes after the attack. Or is my understanding wrong? Compression is whatever you make it. If the final dynamic range is reduced, you have compression - there is nothing intrinsic that tells you how it must be done. That would be an "artistic" choice. sorry, I meant specifically another technique that is also called 'compression', the one that is part of changing the dynamics of a recorded instrument such as drums. It is part of the effects in a recording console; so you would have 3 different meanings of compression: 1) lossy coding 2) dynamic range reduction 3) compression as part of recording an instrument. I just thought if it does what I think it does, the last one should really be called something other than 'compression', maybe 'attack shaping' or so? L. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 17:54:34 +0000, Luigi wrote:
Don Pearce wrote: layman here... I've always thought 'compression' as part of the recording process is also misleading (ie. it would be a third meaning), as it leaves the initial attack alone and only reduces what comes after the attack. Or is my understanding wrong? Compression is whatever you make it. If the final dynamic range is reduced, you have compression - there is nothing intrinsic that tells you how it must be done. That would be an "artistic" choice. sorry, I meant specifically another technique that is also called 'compression', the one that is part of changing the dynamics of a recorded instrument such as drums. It is part of the effects in a recording console; so you would have 3 different meanings of compression: 1) lossy coding 2) dynamic range reduction 3) compression as part of recording an instrument. I just thought if it does what I think it does, the last one should really be called something other than 'compression', maybe 'attack shaping' or so? L. Attack and release are the two main settings of a compressor and they determine the sound. Applied to drums they result in kind of pumping effect - taken to the extreme on Phil Collins "Something in the air tonight". Lossy coding is another thing altogether, and I wish we could find a different name for it to stop the confusion. d --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
Don Pearce: Lately I have made it a forced habit to
refer to the two, respectively, as dynamic compression and data compression. Haven't had any misunderstandings yet! |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
geoff wrote: "So do you not differentiate between normal lossless data compression as
in Zip, FLAC, etc, and data-reduction schemes such as in MP3, JPEG, etc ? Or just put them in the same big vague basket ? geoff " For most conversations "dynamic compression and "data compression" suffice. No need to subcategorize the latter as long as both parties know which affects loud-soft ratio and which affects file size. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
On 1/10/2016 3:56 PM, geoff wrote:
So do you not differentiate between normal lossless data compression as in Zip, FLAC, etc, and data-reduction schemes such as in MP3, JPEG, etc ? Or just put them in the same big vague basket ? For me, it depends on who I'm talking to and what they really want to know. Those are file types (or "containers" of a sort) that are independent of what data gets processed by the the algorithm that produces that type file. "Data reduced (or compressed) MP3" is redundant. It's somewhat important to know what you're getting, or asking for, because presumably you'll want to listen to the audio or view the picture, and not all systems will play every format. For example, my friend has a Nissan somethingorother that has a USB port as part of the audio system. It will play an MP3 file from a USB thumb drive, but not a WAV file. I don't know about other audio formats. I didn't read the manual. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
Don Pearce wrote:
Attack and release are the two main settings of a compressor and they determine the sound. Applied to drums they result in kind of pumping effect - taken to the extreme on Phil Collins "Something in the air tonight". And this compression, along with limiting, expansion, and AGC, are special cases of the general class of "dynamics processors." Lossy coding is another thing altogether, and I wish we could find a different name for it to stop the confusion. That's why I like to use the phrase "perceptual encoding" because it both describes what is going on and why. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
Um, where did I mention anything to do with audio dynamics compression above ? geoff " Never said that you did. I was just spelling out plainly the terms I thought necessary to distinguish the two. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
"The two" were not the two I was clearly alluding to. geoff " I know. You were differentiating between two subtypes of data compression: Lossy and lossless. When folks complain about the effects of "too much compression" on music, most of the time it is the most audible form - dynamic compression - they are referring to, albeit vaguely. To help clarify such a conversation, I would usually ask, "Which type of compression: Dynamic(loud to soft), or data compression, which reduces file size"? Such probing usually clears things up, without needing to delve deeper into subcategories of the latter. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
"- show quoted text -
Sorry - "and one *NOT* being a subcategory of the other." geoff " Ahh. Another nit-picker in our midst. Loves to stir the pot. Mr. Carson: the door please? |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 23:56:15 GMT, Ralph Barone wrote: geoff wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06tvgp1 geoff The world would be an infinitesimally nicer place if dynamic range reduction and file size reduction didn't both use the same term "compression". The programme would have done well not to mention data compression at all. It didn't contribute materially, and served only to introduce some confusion. d --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus I think that discussing both makes some sense because they both make music sound terrible if overdone, and they've both been highly used lately, but they did flip back and forth between the two types a bit too much right at the end. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
Luigi wrote:
layman here... I've always thought 'compression' as part of the recording process is also misleading (ie. it would be a third meaning), as it leaves the initial attack alone and only reduces what comes after the attack. ** Doing that results in an expansion of the dynamic range. The old dBx160 "compressors" had a slow attack of about 25mS, allowing transients to pass unaffected while limiting steady parts of the programme. The net result is the peak to average ratio goes UP, not down as you might expect. The VU meter on the 160 followed the same characteristic, so hiding the fact from operators who preferred to believe their eyes instead of their ears. Genuine peak limiters have fast attack and a fairly slow release to prevent this happening. .... Phil |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:12:19 PM UTC-5, wrote:
"- show quoted text - Sorry - "and one *NOT* being a subcategory of the other." geoff " Ahh. Another nit-picker in our midst. Loves to stir the pot. Mr. Carson: the door please? Interesting that Metalica approved compressed sound, but fans who found the RockBand multi-tracks mixed to what they felt appropriate!! Neat!! Jack |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:12:19 PM UTC-5, wrote:
"- show quoted text - Sorry - "and one *NOT* being a subcategory of the other." geoff " Ahh. Another nit-picker in our midst. Loves to stir the pot. Mr. Carson: the door please? About the early 60's, 35mm film audio recordings gained SOME momentum. In general, people didn't care for the higher quality sound. However, on the rear of a Mercury Record 35mm LP, they offered a standalone electronic gadget for use with their 35mm audio recordings. Does anyone know what it actually was? http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...tintherain.mp3 Thanks. Jack |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
On 11/01/2016 1:59 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
Luigi wrote: layman here... I've always thought 'compression' as part of the recording process is also misleading (ie. it would be a third meaning), as it leaves the initial attack alone and only reduces what comes after the attack. ** Doing that results in an expansion of the dynamic range. The old dBx160 "compressors" had a slow attack of about 25mS, allowing transients to pass unaffected while limiting steady parts of the programme. The net result is the peak to average ratio goes UP, not down as you might expect. The VU meter on the 160 followed the same characteristic, so hiding the fact from operators who preferred to believe their eyes instead of their ears. Genuine peak limiters have fast attack and a fairly slow release to prevent this happening. I think you have missed the difference between the point of a "compressor" and a "peak limiter" then. Models like the 160 are pretty limited control wise unfortunately. But a "genuine peak limiter" alone will usually have a fast release, not a "fairly slow release". You can use a compressor for that where necessary, usually together with the peak limiter. Proper use of controls on both (where provided) can provide audible leveling without destroying transients, or it can provide real dynamic range reduction as required. Trevor. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
Trevor wrote:
** Doing that results in an expansion of the dynamic range. The old dBx160 "compressors" had a slow attack of about 25mS, allowing transients to pass unaffected while limiting steady parts of the programme. The net result is the peak to average ratio goes UP, not down as you might expect. The VU meter on the 160 followed the same characteristic, so hiding the fact from operators who preferred to believe their eyes instead of their ears. Genuine peak limiters have fast attack and a fairly slow release to prevent this happening. I think you have missed the difference between the point of a "compressor" and a "peak limiter" then. Models like the 160 are pretty limited control wise unfortunately. But a "genuine peak limiter" alone will usually have a fast release, not a "fairly slow release". You can use a compressor for that where necessary, usually together with the peak limiter. Proper use of controls on both (where provided) can provide audible leveling without destroying transients, or it can provide real dynamic range reduction as required. ** I mentioned release time because the dbx160 ( and relatives ) has a fixed and fairly fast one - about 12db per 100mS. At this rate the gain changes during speech and also low frequency sine waves causing audible distortion which a slower release would fix. I saw a lot of dbx160s in the 80s and 90s being used in sound reinforcement - where they were expected to keep a limit on maximum levels and prevent amplifier clipping. To this end they were used with high threshold and ratio settings while the operator kept an eye on the yellow & red LEDs plus the VU needle. This was standard practice based on faith not science - the faith deriving mainly from the fact the companies like Clair Bros used them this way. But it simply didn't work and peak levels way above the threshold setting appeared at the output constantly - plus the gain pumped. I know that recording folk like them for the sound effect they create, particularly with bass drums, which is essentially range expansion combined with gain pumping. An ideal peak limiter has no effect on programme until the threshold level is reached when it instantly drops the gain to keep the signal peaks below the threshold. Normal gain should be restored in about 1 second when the incoming signal level drops below the set threshold. Units that have independent threshold, attack, release and ratio controls are versatile enough to do many tasks, including sounding just like a dbx160. BTW; dbx160s had another endearing characteristic, they would enter switch off muting if the AC supply voltage dropped suddenly by 10% or more. The whole FOH system would suddenly go dead for 5 seconds and then re-appear. Drove operators mad and they never suspected their dbx160s were the cause. ..... Phil |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
On 11/01/2016 7:00 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
Trevor wrote: ** Doing that results in an expansion of the dynamic range. The old dBx160 "compressors" had a slow attack of about 25mS, allowing transients to pass unaffected while limiting steady parts of the programme. The net result is the peak to average ratio goes UP, not down as you might expect. The VU meter on the 160 followed the same characteristic, so hiding the fact from operators who preferred to believe their eyes instead of their ears. Genuine peak limiters have fast attack and a fairly slow release to prevent this happening. I think you have missed the difference between the point of a "compressor" and a "peak limiter" then. Models like the 160 are pretty limited control wise unfortunately. But a "genuine peak limiter" alone will usually have a fast release, not a "fairly slow release". You can use a compressor for that where necessary, usually together with the peak limiter. Proper use of controls on both (where provided) can provide audible leveling without destroying transients, or it can provide real dynamic range reduction as required. ** I mentioned release time because the dbx160 ( and relatives ) has a fixed and fairly fast one - about 12db per 100mS. At this rate the gain changes during speech and also low frequency sine waves causing audible distortion which a slower release would fix. Yes, the 160 is very limited in it's controls as I said. They do have alternate ones with full control of attack and decay however. I saw a lot of dbx160s in the 80s and 90s being used in sound reinforcement - where they were expected to keep a limit on maximum levels and prevent amplifier clipping. Agreed, but a poor choice for that. Budgets usually dictate using equipment that provides as much bang for the buck as possible, not always what is actually best for the purpose. And those that select or use it often have no idea anyway. To this end they were used with high threshold and ratio settings while the operator kept an eye on the yellow & red LEDs plus the VU needle. This was standard practice based on faith not science - the faith deriving mainly from the fact the companies like Clair Bros used them this way. But it simply didn't work and peak levels way above the threshold setting appeared at the output constantly - plus the gain pumped. Yep, no argument. Many live sound guys still do not have a proper understanding of how the equipment actually works. If the threshold setting is high enough though, gain pumping is often inaudible, but agreed a faster attack is required for peak limiting. The real problem with something like the 160 is people think they can do both compression and peak limiting with it. The controls simply do not allow for that. I know that recording folk like them for the sound effect they create, particularly with bass drums, which is essentially range expansion combined with gain pumping. Models with gating even more so. An ideal peak limiter has no effect on programme until the threshold level is reached when it instantly drops the gain to keep the signal peaks below the threshold. Normal gain should be restored in about 1 second when the incoming signal level drops below the set threshold. Units that have independent threshold, attack, release and ratio controls are versatile enough to do many tasks, including sounding just like a dbx160. Exactly. The 160 is pretty limited, not so all compressor/limiter/noise gates on the market. BTW; dbx160s had another endearing characteristic, they would enter switch off muting if the AC supply voltage dropped suddenly by 10% or more. The whole FOH system would suddenly go dead for 5 seconds and then re-appear. Drove operators mad and they never suspected their dbx160s were the cause. Glad I didn't have one then, although I have used many DBX products over the years. Not sure I've ever had to put up with a 10% loss of voltage though, not that I know of anyway. 100% loss a few times! :-( Trevor. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
Trevor wrote:
BTW; dbx160s had another endearing characteristic, they would enter switch off muting if the AC supply voltage dropped suddenly by 10% or more. The whole FOH system would suddenly go dead for 5 seconds and then re-appear. Drove operators mad and they never suspected their dbx160s were the cause. Glad I didn't have one then, although I have used many DBX products over the years. Not sure I've ever had to put up with a 10% loss of voltage though, not that I know of anyway. 100% loss a few times! :-( ** Just to be clear, the voltage drop that triggered the 160's muting system was about 20V in 240V happening suddenly and maybe briefly. You could simulate it on the bench with a Variac with a quick wrist flick. At a venue, where the AC power was being stretched, by the lighting rig coming up fast or the refrigeration system cycling on. Running the same PA on a modest generator or on board a boat was near impossible. Of course, a simple enough mod fixed the silly problem. ..... Phil |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW
Les Cargill wrote:
I remember the pianos from all those Brubeck records. That's pretty much canonical now - people may not squeeze them that much, but it's still a thing. I can't reliably tell 320 KBPS mp3 from full linear. Perhaps that's just a lack of training. Perhaps it's the playback chain. But in this day and age, 320 is affordable for most connections. -- Les Cargill -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
In article , Luigi wrote:
Ralph Barone wrote: The world would be an infinitesimally nicer place if dynamic range reduction and file size reduction didn't both use the same term "compression". layman here... I've always thought 'compression' as part of the recording process is also misleading (ie. it would be a third meaning), as it leaves the initial attack alone and only reduces what comes after the attack. Or is my understanding wrong? Depends how you set it. You can do that if you want (and it's a good way to make snares pop out). You can do the reverse too, with an exaggerated decay and the attack almost completely chopped off. You can also set some compressors so that they lock at level when the input is silent, so you specifically avoid pumping up the beginning of each word or note. There are a hell of a lot of really useful things you can do with compression. There are, as noted, some evil things you can do too. Tools are like that. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
Scott Dorsey wrote: "There are, as noted, some evil things you can do too.
Tools are like-SHHHHH Scott!! There are some on here who get really IRKED if their trade secrets are revealed. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
thekkkma @ omnibus-brevis.edu wrote in message
... Scott Dorsey wrote: "There are, as noted, some evil things you can do too. Tools are like-SHHHHH Scott!! There are some on here who get really IRKED if their trade secrets are revealed. And dummmmmmmm****s are tools. There's one dumb**** here who lays the whip to his hobby horse, but all it does is decompose, because he rode it to death long ago. Norman Bates and his mother; Dumb**** Theckma and his hobby horse. The hobby horse was rode hard and put away dead. FCKWAFA. AASBDFTOC. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beeb article TLW / 'compression'
Scott Dorsey, geoff, et al:
" thekkkma @ omnibus-brevis.edu wrote in message ... - show quoted text - And dummmmmmmm****s are tools. There's one dumb**** here who lays the whip to his hobby horse, but all it does is decompose, because he rode it to death long ago. Norman Bates and his mother; Dumb**** Theckma and his hobby horse. The hobby horse was rode hard and put away dead. FCKWAFA. AASBDFTOC." See what I mean? This guy's obviously an industry insider. But nice way for a "professional" to act, eh? Probably does stuff to his clients' projects without consulting them. Class act! Too bad - you've been exposed, just by the way you react on here. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
guitar article | Pro Audio | |||
ISO LP Terminator article | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Did anyone see the article . . . . | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Whole article | Pro Audio |