Recording experiment files

[Jenn]

Hi all,

As I've written of earlier here, I've been experimenting in recording my
playing. I just together a crude website with two tunes on it. I'd
appreciate any comments on the SOUND that is present. Both files have a
bit of reverb, otherwise no EQ or other processing. Too much
highs/lows/noise, etc.... any comments would be welcome as I try to get
better at this.

Please forgive the playing! I did it kind of "quick and dirty", wanting
to get some comments before I leave for NAMM weekend.

The site is: web.mac.com/jennconducts Go to the second page, labeled
"Blank".

Thanks for any help!

Jenn

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> Hi all,
>
> As I've written of earlier here, I've been experimenting
> in recording my playing. I just together a crude website
> with two tunes on it. I'd appreciate any comments on the
> SOUND that is present. Both files have a bit of reverb,
> otherwise no EQ or other processing. Too much
> highs/lows/noise, etc.... any comments would be welcome
> as I try to get better at this.
>
> Please forgive the playing! I did it kind of "quick and
> dirty", wanting to get some comments before I leave for
> NAMM weekend.
>
> The site is: web.mac.com/jennconducts Go to the second
> page, labeled "Blank".

The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3 format, not some ^%#!
Apple junk that requires people purchase more Apple software just to
download.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> As I've written of earlier here, I've been experimenting
>>> in recording my playing. I just together a crude
>>> website with two tunes on it. I'd appreciate any
>>> comments on the SOUND that is present. Both files have
>>> a bit of reverb, otherwise no EQ or other processing.
>>> Too much highs/lows/noise, etc.... any comments would
>>> be welcome as I try to get better at this.
>>>
>>> Please forgive the playing! I did it kind of "quick and
>>> dirty", wanting to get some comments before I leave for
>>> NAMM weekend.
>>>
>>> The site is: web.mac.com/jennconducts Go to the second
>>> page, labeled "Blank".
>>
>> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
>> format, not some ^%#! Apple junk that requires people
>> purchase more Apple software just to download.
>
> I think you're meant to play them in your browser.

I think that someone should learn how to do things in the generally-accepted
way, and not ram Apple cores down our throats.

[Jenn]

In article
>,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in
> > message
> >
> > et
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > As I've written of earlier here, I've been experimenting
> > > in recording my playing. I just together a crude website
> > > with two tunes on it. I'd appreciate any comments on the
> > > SOUND that is present. Both files have a bit of reverb,
> > > otherwise no EQ or other processing. Too much
> > > highs/lows/noise, etc.... any comments would be welcome
> > > as I try to get better at this.
> > >
> > > Please forgive the playing! I did it kind of "quick and
> > > dirty", wanting to get some comments before I leave for
> > > NAMM weekend.
> > >
> > > The site is: web.mac.com/jennconducts Go to the second
> > > page, labeled "Blank".
> >
> > The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3 format, not some
> > ^%#!
> > Apple junk that requires people purchase more Apple software just to
> > download.
>
> I think you're meant to play them in your browser.
>
> Stephen

Correct.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As I've written of earlier here, I've been experimenting
> > in recording my playing. I just together a crude website
> > with two tunes on it. I'd appreciate any comments on the
> > SOUND that is present. Both files have a bit of reverb,
> > otherwise no EQ or other processing. Too much
> > highs/lows/noise, etc.... any comments would be welcome
> > as I try to get better at this.
> >
> > Please forgive the playing! I did it kind of "quick and
> > dirty", wanting to get some comments before I leave for
> > NAMM weekend.
> >
> > The site is: web.mac.com/jennconducts Go to the second
> > page, labeled "Blank".
>
> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3 format, not some ^%#!
> Apple junk that requires people purchase more Apple software just to
> download.

It's a .wav file, to be listened to on the site.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> net
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> As I've written of earlier here, I've been experimenting
> >>> in recording my playing. I just together a crude
> >>> website with two tunes on it. I'd appreciate any
> >>> comments on the SOUND that is present. Both files have
> >>> a bit of reverb, otherwise no EQ or other processing.
> >>> Too much highs/lows/noise, etc.... any comments would
> >>> be welcome as I try to get better at this.
> >>>
> >>> Please forgive the playing! I did it kind of "quick and
> >>> dirty", wanting to get some comments before I leave for
> >>> NAMM weekend.
> >>>
> >>> The site is: web.mac.com/jennconducts Go to the second
> >>> page, labeled "Blank".
> >>
> >> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> >> format, not some ^%#! Apple junk that requires people
> >> purchase more Apple software just to download.
> >
> > I think you're meant to play them in your browser.
>
> I think that someone should learn how to do things in the generally-accepted
> way, and not ram Apple cores down our throats.

I've heard the files on two Windows machines. Perhaps you should take
yours to a qualified technician.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> net
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> As I've written of earlier here, I've been
>>>>> experimenting in recording my playing. I just
>>>>> together a crude website with two tunes on it. I'd
>>>>> appreciate any comments on the SOUND that is present.
>>>>> Both files have a bit of reverb, otherwise no EQ or
>>>>> other processing. Too much highs/lows/noise, etc....
>>>>> any comments would be welcome as I try to get better
>>>>> at this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please forgive the playing! I did it kind of "quick
>>>>> and dirty", wanting to get some comments before I
>>>>> leave for NAMM weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>> The site is: web.mac.com/jennconducts Go to the
>>>>> second page, labeled "Blank".
>>>>
>>>> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
>>>> format, not some ^%#! Apple junk that requires people
>>>> purchase more Apple software just to download.

>>> I think you're meant to play them in your browser.

>> I think that someone should learn how to do things in
>> the generally-accepted way, and not ram Apple cores down
>> our throats.

> I've heard the files on two Windows machines. Perhaps
> you should take yours to a qualified technician.

As usual Jenn, you've missed the point and covered it with snot.

Since you didn't get it the first time, let's see if you can get this:

The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jan 17, 9:46*am, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > >> message
> > .
> > >> net
> > >>> As I've written of earlier here, I've been experimenting
> > >>> in recording my playing. *I just together a crude
> > >>> website with two tunes on it. *I'd appreciate any
> > >>> comments on the SOUND that is present. *Both files have
> > >>> a bit of reverb, otherwise no EQ or other processing.
> > >>> Too much highs/lows/noise, etc.... any comments would
> > >>> be welcome as I try to get better at this.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please forgive the playing! *I did it kind of "quick and
> > >>> dirty", wanting to get some comments before I leave for
> > >>> NAMM weekend.
> > > >>
> > >>> The site is: web.mac.com/jennconducts *Go to the second
> > >>> page, labeled "Blank".
> > >
> > > I think that someone should learn how to do things in the
> > > generally accepted way, and not ram Apple cores down our throats.
>
> I've heard the files on two Windows machines. *Perhaps you
> should take yours to a qualified technician.

Touche. The files played fine on my PC using Internet Explorer,
Jenn. Nice playing. I especially liked the sound of the Spence:
a suitably warm midrange which can easily be diminished on
recordings of steel-strung guitars.

Interesting to see you play with the instrument on your right
thigh than in the approved classical manner.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Jenn]

In article
>,
John Atkinson > wrote:

> On Jan 17, 9:46*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > > >> message
> > >
> > > >>gy.
> > > >> net
> > > >>> As I've written of earlier here, I've been experimenting
> > > >>> in recording my playing. *I just together a crude
> > > >>> website with two tunes on it. *I'd appreciate any
> > > >>> comments on the SOUND that is present. *Both files have
> > > >>> a bit of reverb, otherwise no EQ or other processing.
> > > >>> Too much highs/lows/noise, etc.... any comments would
> > > >>> be welcome as I try to get better at this.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Please forgive the playing! *I did it kind of "quick and
> > > >>> dirty", wanting to get some comments before I leave for
> > > >>> NAMM weekend.
> > > > >>
> > > >>> The site is: web.mac.com/jennconducts *Go to the second
> > > >>> page, labeled "Blank".
> > > >
> > > > I think that someone should learn how to do things in the
> > > > generally accepted way, and not ram Apple cores down our throats.
> >
> > I've heard the files on two Windows machines. *Perhaps you
> > should take yours to a qualified technician.
>
> Touche. The files played fine on my PC using Internet Explorer,
> Jenn. Nice playing. I especially liked the sound of the Spence:
> a suitably warm midrange which can easily be diminished on
> recordings of steel-strung guitars.

Thanks, John. That midrange may well be the instrument. They are both
really great instruments, but that Martin Custom Laurence Juber (my
friend and teacher) has GREAT warmth, I think.

>
> Interesting to see you play with the instrument on your right
> thigh than in the approved classical manner.

Yeah, I have no classical technique at all (ironically). I'm in the
style of LJ, Ed Gerhard, Doug Smith, Tommy Emmanuel, et al. all of whom
play "right legged". BTW, if you like that kind of music, you should
look up those players. Unbelievable great.

Thanks again!
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>> y.
> >>>> net
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As I've written of earlier here, I've been
> >>>>> experimenting in recording my playing. I just
> >>>>> together a crude website with two tunes on it. I'd
> >>>>> appreciate any comments on the SOUND that is present.
> >>>>> Both files have a bit of reverb, otherwise no EQ or
> >>>>> other processing. Too much highs/lows/noise, etc....
> >>>>> any comments would be welcome as I try to get better
> >>>>> at this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please forgive the playing! I did it kind of "quick
> >>>>> and dirty", wanting to get some comments before I
> >>>>> leave for NAMM weekend.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The site is: web.mac.com/jennconducts Go to the
> >>>>> second page, labeled "Blank".
> >>>>
> >>>> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> >>>> format, not some ^%#! Apple junk that requires people
> >>>> purchase more Apple software just to download.
>
> >>> I think you're meant to play them in your browser.
>
> >> I think that someone should learn how to do things in
> >> the generally-accepted way, and not ram Apple cores down
> >> our throats.
>
> > I've heard the files on two Windows machines. Perhaps
> > you should take yours to a qualified technician.
>
> As usual Jenn, you've missed the point and covered it with snot.

No, I got the point exactly. And am replying to YOUR snot. As far as
anyone can show, I never have snotted you first.

>
> Since you didn't get it the first time, let's see if you can get this:
>
> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3

Since you didn't get it the first time, let's see if you can get this:

It IS a .wav file
It IS a .wav file
It IS a .wav file
It IS a .wav file

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As I've written of earlier here, I've been experimenting in recording my
> > playing. I just together a crude website with two tunes on it. I'd
> > appreciate any comments on the SOUND that is present. Both files have a
> > bit of reverb, otherwise no EQ or other processing. Too much
> > highs/lows/noise, etc.... any comments would be welcome as I try to get
> > better at this.
> >
> > Please forgive the playing! I did it kind of "quick and dirty", wanting
> > to get some comments before I leave for NAMM weekend.
> >
> > The site is: web.mac.com/jennconducts Go to the second page, labeled
> > "Blank".
> >
> > Thanks for any help!
>
> I had to install Quicktime to listen.

Yeah, seem like that's the thing. I'm new to the recording software,
and I've not made a website with Apple's software, so I'm learning.
I'll load mp3 files later today.

>
> Both sounded great on a quick listen on my office system
> (old large Advents).

Thanks.

>
> There was one early neck screech on My Sweet Lady
> that made my teeth hurt...or maybe its just cuz I'm on my
> way to my dentist :)

Ouch. Good luck with that.

>
> I did find something on my speaker project.
> Tool coat appears to be the same stuff they use
> as that neck lube spray I got at quitar center
> except it holds up longer and you get
> about 100 times volume for the same price.
> Stuff is made for putting a durable low friction
> surface on table saws. Compatible with wood
> surfaces according to the can. I bet it would
> work great on a quitar neck...maybe try an old
> one first.
>
> ScottW

The sound isn't the neck, but rather from the strings. If my technique
were better, I could eliminate that somewhat. I'll work on it!

Thanks for commenting.

[Jenn]

In article
>,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > >> message
> > >>
> > >> y.
> > >> net
> > >>> Hi all,
> > >>>
> > >>> As I've written of earlier here, I've been experimenting
> > >>> in recording my playing. I just together a crude
> > >>> website with two tunes on it. I'd appreciate any
> > >>> comments on the SOUND that is present. Both files have
> > >>> a bit of reverb, otherwise no EQ or other processing.
> > >>> Too much highs/lows/noise, etc.... any comments would
> > >>> be welcome as I try to get better at this.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please forgive the playing! I did it kind of "quick and
> > >>> dirty", wanting to get some comments before I leave for
> > >>> NAMM weekend.
> > >>>
> > >>> The site is: web.mac.com/jennconducts Go to the second
> > >>> page, labeled "Blank".
> > >>
> > >> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> > >> format, not some ^%#! Apple junk that requires people
> > >> purchase more Apple software just to download.
> > >
> > > I think you're meant to play them in your browser.
> >
> > I think that someone should learn how to do things in the
> > generally-accepted
> > way, and not ram Apple cores down our throats.
>
> Hmm...(fires up IE), no, the second page no longer appears. Better read
> the rest of the thread...
>
> Well, a google including quicktime, plugin and windows brings up plenty
> o' free stuff if your browser can't handle playback.
>
> I also believe it's generally accepted for artists to want to share
> playback but to disable downloads at their prerogative.
>
> Stephen

THanks, Stephen. The Apple program did it as Quicktime by default.
I'll do mp3 files later today. I'm in the early learning stages of both
pieces of software.

[Bill Riel]

In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-9DDC39.09451417012008
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
says...

> Since you didn't get it the first time, let's see if you can get this:
>
> It IS a .wav file
> It IS a .wav file
> It IS a .wav file
> It IS a .wav file

Indeed - and I had no problem listening to the files on my windows
machine.

Sounds very nice to me, but I'm hardly an expert in such matters.

--
Bill

[Jenn]

In article >,
Bill Riel > wrote:

> In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-9DDC39.09451417012008
> @newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> says...
>
> > Since you didn't get it the first time, let's see if you can get this:
> >
> > It IS a .wav file
> > It IS a .wav file
> > It IS a .wav file
> > It IS a .wav file
>
> Indeed - and I had no problem listening to the files on my windows
> machine.
>
> Sounds very nice to me, but I'm hardly an expert in such matters.
>
> --
> Bill

Thanks, Bill

[Bill Riel]

In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-0C7716.09493317012008
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
says...

> THanks, Stephen. The Apple program did it as Quicktime by default.
> I'll do mp3 files later today. I'm in the early learning stages of both
> pieces of software.

If you don't mind others downloading the audio files, you can simply
link directly to the .mp3 or .wav files. Otherwise there's nothing wrong
with Quicktime. Most windows (and all Mac) users will have a copy of the
player.

--
Bill

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> y.
>>>>>> net
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I've written of earlier here, I've been
>>>>>>> experimenting in recording my playing. I just
>>>>>>> together a crude website with two tunes on it. I'd
>>>>>>> appreciate any comments on the SOUND that is
>>>>>>> present. Both files have a bit of reverb, otherwise
>>>>>>> no EQ or other processing. Too much
>>>>>>> highs/lows/noise, etc.... any comments would be
>>>>>>> welcome as I try to get better at this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please forgive the playing! I did it kind of "quick
>>>>>>> and dirty", wanting to get some comments before I
>>>>>>> leave for NAMM weekend.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The site is: web.mac.com/jennconducts Go to the
>>>>>>> second page, labeled "Blank".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or
>>>>>> .mp3 format, not some ^%#! Apple junk that requires
>>>>>> people purchase more Apple software just to download.
>>
>>>>> I think you're meant to play them in your browser.
>>
>>>> I think that someone should learn how to do things in
>>>> the generally-accepted way, and not ram Apple cores
>>>> down our throats.
>>
>>> I've heard the files on two Windows machines. Perhaps
>>> you should take yours to a qualified technician.
>>
>> As usual Jenn, you've missed the point and covered it
>> with snot.
>
> No, I got the point exactly. And am replying to YOUR
> snot. As far as anyone can show, I never have snotted
> you first.
>
>>
>> Since you didn't get it the first time, let's see if you
>> can get this:
>>
>> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
>> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
>> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
>> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
>
> Since you didn't get it the first time, let's see if you
> can get this:
>
> It IS a .wav file
> It IS a .wav file
> It IS a .wav file
> It IS a .wav file

No, it is something that is not visible to web users as a standard .wav
file. It's all tied up in apple land.

Apparently Jenn, you've never downloaded a .wav file in your life, and so
you don't know the difference between a simply downloadable .wav file and
the abortion you're tried to foist on the world.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ig
> >>>>>> y.
> >>>>>> net
> >>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As I've written of earlier here, I've been
> >>>>>>> experimenting in recording my playing. I just
> >>>>>>> together a crude website with two tunes on it. I'd
> >>>>>>> appreciate any comments on the SOUND that is
> >>>>>>> present. Both files have a bit of reverb, otherwise
> >>>>>>> no EQ or other processing. Too much
> >>>>>>> highs/lows/noise, etc.... any comments would be
> >>>>>>> welcome as I try to get better at this.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please forgive the playing! I did it kind of "quick
> >>>>>>> and dirty", wanting to get some comments before I
> >>>>>>> leave for NAMM weekend.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The site is: web.mac.com/jennconducts Go to the
> >>>>>>> second page, labeled "Blank".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or
> >>>>>> .mp3 format, not some ^%#! Apple junk that requires
> >>>>>> people purchase more Apple software just to download.
> >>
> >>>>> I think you're meant to play them in your browser.
> >>
> >>>> I think that someone should learn how to do things in
> >>>> the generally-accepted way, and not ram Apple cores
> >>>> down our throats.
> >>
> >>> I've heard the files on two Windows machines. Perhaps
> >>> you should take yours to a qualified technician.
> >>
> >> As usual Jenn, you've missed the point and covered it
> >> with snot.
> >
> > No, I got the point exactly. And am replying to YOUR
> > snot. As far as anyone can show, I never have snotted
> > you first.
> >
> >>
> >> Since you didn't get it the first time, let's see if you
> >> can get this:
> >>
> >> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> >> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> >> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> >> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> >
> > Since you didn't get it the first time, let's see if you
> > can get this:
> >
> > It IS a .wav file
> > It IS a .wav file
> > It IS a .wav file
> > It IS a .wav file
>
> No, it is something that is not visible to web users as a standard .wav
> file. It's all tied up in apple land.

First of all, as I've stated, I'm new to these things. I'm new to the
recording software, and I've never created a webpage with Apple's
program. So I'm learning. When I learn how to put the file up without
using Quicktime, I'll do so. Second, I thought that Quicktime was all
over the place these days. A Dell that we just purchased came with it,
for example. Scott can listen to it on his Windows machine. I haven't
heard from anyone else telling me that they can't listen to it.

>
> Apparently Jenn, you've never downloaded a .wav file in your life, and so
> you don't know the difference between a simply downloadable .wav file

Of course I have. And, as I wrote above, when I figure out how to do it
another way, I'll do so.

> and
> the abortion you're tried to foist on the world.

"Abortion"? lol I'm sorry that you can't listen to it. If you don't
care to download Quicktime and listen, that's fine. I didn't expect you
to do me the favor of giving me your input.

[Bill Riel]

In article -
state.edu>, says...

> Why don't you just listen on your browser (with a free plug-in if you
> don't have one already)?

Because there's no recordings of 'castanets' on Jenn's web page?

--
Bill

[Bill Riel]

In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-74DA49.14075217012008
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
says...

> "Abortion"? lol

Well, Arny would know. Have you visited pcabx.com lately?

--
Bill

[Jenn]

On Jan 17, 2:46*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> *Bill Riel > wrote:
>
> > In article -
> > state.edu>, says...
>
> > > Why don't you just listen on your browser (with a free plug-in if you
> > > don't have one already)?
>
> > Because there's no recordings of 'castanets' on Jenn's web page?
>
> I wonder why The Soup's "Clip of the Week" synthesized 'tah-dah' seems
> so familiar.
>
> Stephen

Did Arny ever remember from where he got those synth files? Come to
think of it, did he ever admit that they are synth files? IIRC, he
first tried to say that they were real trumpets, horns, etc.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to The Big ****:

> > the abortion you're tried to foist on the world.
>
> "Abortion"? lol I'm sorry that you can't listen to it. If you don't
> care to download Quicktime and listen, that's fine. I didn't expect you
> to do me the favor of giving me your input.

Krooger is the only living creature for whom inputs are what the rest of
the natural world calls outputs.

;-)

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> Why don't you just listen on your browser (with a free plug-in if you
> don't have one already)?

That would defeat the purpose of self-perpetuating argumentation. Really,
Stephen, after all these years, I'm surprised you haven't learned that
serving as fodder for the "debating trade" is audio's highest and best
purpose.

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> > > Why don't you just listen on your browser (with a free plug-in if you
> > > don't have one already)?
> >
> > That would defeat the purpose of self-perpetuating argumentation. Really,
> > Stephen, after all these years, I'm surprised you haven't learned that
> > serving as fodder for the "debating trade" is audio's highest and best
> > purpose.
>
> My other favorite game is "guess what I'm not telling you".

That's a good one. There's also the SoCal variation, which I think you've
called "I'm gonna argue with something I wish you'd said".

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> > Did Arny ever remember from where he got those synth files? Come to
> > think of it, did he ever admit that they are synth files? IIRC, he
> > first tried to say that they were real trumpets, horns, etc.

> I think that's right, but discussions of those samples predates this
> go-round.

As the Krooborg might say if he could find the words: "Honesty is for
Normals."

[John Corbett]

In article >, "Arny Krueger"
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Since you didn't get it the first time, let's see if you
> >> can get this:
> >>
> >> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> >> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> >> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> >> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> >
> > Since you didn't get it the first time, let's see if you
> > can get this:
> >
> > It IS a .wav file
> > It IS a .wav file
> > It IS a .wav file
> > It IS a .wav file
>
> No, it is something that is not visible to web users as a standard .wav
> file. It's all tied up in apple land.
>
> Apparently Jenn, you've never downloaded a .wav file in your life, and so
> you don't know the difference between a simply downloadable .wav file and
> the abortion you're tried to foist on the world.

The two files in question ARE .wav files, and anyone who knows how to use
a web browser should be able to download them without a problem. In fact,
you don't need to touch a keyboard to do that---it's all just point and
click, and you don't even need to use the middle or right buttons on a
mouse. It's so simple a child could do it. However, you may want to wait
until the mp3 versions get posted---one .wav file is about 20 MB and the
other is about 50 MB.

First impressions: the recordings sound very nice. I'm not a guitarist,
so I'm not going to try to be picky about the performance. The recording
is successful in that I find it easier to listen to the music than to try
to focus on technical issues of the recording.

--JC

[dizzy]

Bill Riel wrote:

>In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-9DDC39.09451417012008
>,
>says...
>
>> Since you didn't get it the first time, let's see if you can get this:
>>
>> It IS a .wav file
>> It IS a .wav file
>> It IS a .wav file
>> It IS a .wav file
>
>Indeed - and I had no problem listening to the files on my windows
>machine.

If you have QuickTime, which I certainly do not. Nor do I want it.

[dizzy]

John Corbett wrote:

>The two files in question ARE .wav files, and anyone who knows how to use
>a web browser should be able to download them without a problem. In fact,
>you don't need to touch a keyboard to do that---it's all just point and
>click,

Wrong. I saw no way to "download" them.

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

>> I had to install Quicktime to listen.
>
>Yeah, seem like that's the thing. I'm new to the recording software,
>and I've not made a website with Apple's software, so I'm learning.
>I'll load mp3 files later today.

Also, best form, when requesting people visit a site, is to provide a
clickable link, instead of something that needs to be copied and
pasted.

http://web.mac.com/jennconducts/Site/Blank.html

[dizzy]

John Atkinson wrote:

>> I've heard the files on two Windows machines. *Perhaps you
>> should take yours to a qualified technician.
>
>Touche.

"Touche" my arse.

[George M. Middius]

John Corbett said ****-for-Dinner:

> > Apparently Jenn, you've never downloaded a .wav file in your life, and so
> > you don't know the difference between a simply downloadable .wav file and
> > the abortion[sic] you're tried to foist on the world.

Religious proselytizing noted, LOt"S.

> The two files in question ARE .wav files, and anyone who knows how to use
> a web browser should be able to download them without a problem.

Thank's Johhn for, dumping snot Jonh all over Arnii Krooborg's latest
attempt to martyr himself Jonn.

> you don't need to touch a keyboard to do that---it's all just point and
> click, and you don't even need to use the middle or right buttons on a
> mouse. It's so simple a child could do it.

The Krooborg wants to know where this alleged "child" is. Clearly some
"training sessions" are in order. ;-)

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jan 17, 9:11 pm, dizzy > wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >> I've heard the files on two Windows machines. Perhaps
> >> you should take yours to a qualified technician.
> >
> >Touche.
>
> "Touche" my arse.

Sorry, I meant touché, of course.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Corbett]

In article >, dizzy
> wrote:

> John Corbett wrote:
>
> >The two files in question ARE .wav files, and anyone who knows how to use
> >a web browser should be able to download them without a problem. In fact,
> >you don't need to touch a keyboard to do that---it's all just point and
> >click,
>
> Wrong. I saw no way to "download" them.

As I wrote, "... anyone who knows how to use a web browser ..."
It ain't rocket surgery. ;-)


For example (using Firefox on a Linux box)

Go to Page Info (Tools menu, or just right-click in the page if you prefer that)
Select the Media tab
Select the desired file in the list, and then click the "Save As ..." button.


--JC

[Arny Krueger]

"John Corbett" > wrote in message

> In article
> >, "Arny
> Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since you didn't get it the first time, let's see if
>>>> you can get this:
>>>>
>>>> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
>>>> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
>>>> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
>>>> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
>>>
>>> Since you didn't get it the first time, let's see if you
>>> can get this:
>>>
>>> It IS a .wav file
>>> It IS a .wav file
>>> It IS a .wav file
>>> It IS a .wav file
>>
>> No, it is something that is not visible to web users as
>> a standard .wav file. It's all tied up in apple land.
>>
>> Apparently Jenn, you've never downloaded a .wav file in
>> your life, and so you don't know the difference between
>> a simply downloadable .wav file and the abortion you're
>> tried to foist on the world.
>
> The two files in question ARE .wav files, and anyone who
> knows how to use a web browser should be able to download
> them without a problem.

Good John, why don't you tell us how you downloaded those files into the My
Documents folder of your computer.
Good

[Arny Krueger]

"John Corbett" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> dizzy > wrote:
>
>> John Corbett wrote:
>>
>>> The two files in question ARE .wav files, and anyone
>>> who knows how to use a web browser should be able to
>>> download them without a problem. In fact, you don't
>>> need to touch a keyboard to do that---it's all just
>>> point and click,
>>
>> Wrong. I saw no way to "download" them.
>
> As I wrote, "... anyone who knows how to use a web
> browser ..."
> It ain't rocket surgery. ;-)
>
>
> For example (using Firefox on a Linux box)
>
> Go to Page Info (Tools menu, or just right-click in the
> page if you prefer that) Select the Media tab
> Select the desired file in the list, and then click the
> "Save As ..." button.

Give us an example using Internet Explorer on an XP box, if it so simple.

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" > wrote in message

> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>>> I've heard the files on two Windows machines. Perhaps
>>> you should take yours to a qualified technician.
>>
>> Touche.
>
> "Touche" my arse.

Hearing them isn't the same as downloading them. Apparently this distinction
is lost on Jenn.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Corbett" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> dizzy > wrote:
>
>> John Corbett wrote:
>>
>>> The two files in question ARE .wav files, and anyone
>>> who knows how to use a web browser should be able to
>>> download them without a problem. In fact, you don't
>>> need to touch a keyboard to do that---it's all just
>>> point and click,
>>
>> Wrong. I saw no way to "download" them.
>
> As I wrote, "... anyone who knows how to use a web
> browser ..."
> It ain't rocket surgery. ;-)
>
>
> For example (using Firefox on a Linux box)
>
> Go to Page Info (Tools menu, or just right-click in the
> page if you prefer that) Select the Media tab
> Select the desired file in the list, and then click the
> "Save As ..." button.

Doesn't work that way using the mainstream browser running on the mainstream
operating system, IOW IE7 running under XP. When you right click, you get
an ad telling you to buy apple software.

Common sense would suggest that anything posted on the web should be tested
to see how it downloads using the most widely used browser running on the
most widely used operating

There's a way to circumvent this,* which I used to get the actual .wav files
which are not the size that has been posted here. In the spirit of John
Corbett style nit picking I must point out that the files are not 50 and 20
megabytes as John said, but are instead 50,733 and 21,104 bytes.

The files are very crudely edited with considerable excess head room, way to
much silence at the beginnings and crudely chopped-off reverb tails.

The chopped-off reverb tails suggest to me that as I suspected, the person
who edited them is losing their hearing.

* One can find the files in Temporary Internet Files after they download.
Note that you have to wait for both of them to download before Jenn's page
displays itself completely. IOW, you have to download 70 megabytes of data
before the page will even display properly.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message


> Touche. The files played fine on my PC using Internet
> Explorer,
> Jenn. Nice playing. I especially liked the sound of the
> Spence:
> a suitably warm midrange which can easily be diminished on
> recordings of steel-strung guitars.

Note that John didn't hear the truncated reverb tails, either.

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" > wrote in message

> Jenn wrote:
>
>>> I had to install Quicktime to listen.
>>
>> Yeah, seem like that's the thing. I'm new to the
>> recording software, and I've not made a website with
>> Apple's software, so I'm learning. I'll load mp3 files
>> later today.
>
> Also, best form, when requesting people visit a site, is
> to provide a clickable link, instead of something that
> needs to be copied and pasted.
>
> http://web.mac.com/jennconducts/Site/Blank.html

If you want to take a look at the broken reverb tails, you can find copies
of the files in temporary internet files.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg snotted:

> Good John

Ignored feces.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg snotted:

> Give us

Ignored feces.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg snotted:

> Hearing them

Ignored feces.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg snotted:

> Hearing them

Ignored feces.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg snotted:

> Note

Ignored feces.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg snotted:

> > broken reverb tails,

Ignored feces.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "John Corbett" > wrote in message
>
>> In article >,
>> dizzy > wrote:
>>
>>> John Corbett wrote:
>>>
>>>> The two files in question ARE .wav files, and anyone
>>>> who knows how to use a web browser should be able to
>>>> download them without a problem. In fact, you don't
>>>> need to touch a keyboard to do that---it's all just
>>>> point and click,
>>>
>>> Wrong. I saw no way to "download" them.
>>
>> As I wrote, "... anyone who knows how to use a web
>> browser ..."
>> It ain't rocket surgery. ;-)
>>
>>
>> For example (using Firefox on a Linux box)
>>
>> Go to Page Info (Tools menu, or just right-click in the
>> page if you prefer that) Select the Media tab
>> Select the desired file in the list, and then click the
>> "Save As ..." button.
>
> Give us an example using Internet Explorer on an XP box, if it so simple.

Arny....I don't know what your problem is, but Jenn's page prompts you to
download Quicktime if you don't already have it installed and configured,
and then downloads the wave files and sets up mini-quicktime "controls" to
play them. Couldn't be simpler. Has the great PC builder forgotten the
basics, or have you so screwed up your machine that it doesn't operate
correctly, or have you simply lost you marbles over Jenn actually putting
music up on the web, when we all know it is reserved instead for samples.
And using a Mac as well to do that. Horrors!!

[dizzy]

John Corbett wrote:

>In article >, dizzy
> wrote:
>
>> John Corbett wrote:
>>
>> >The two files in question ARE .wav files, and anyone who knows how to use
>> >a web browser should be able to download them without a problem. In fact,
>> >you don't need to touch a keyboard to do that---it's all just point and
>> >click,
>>
>> Wrong. I saw no way to "download" them.
>
>As I wrote, "... anyone who knows how to use a web browser ..."
>It ain't rocket surgery. ;-)
>
>For example (using Firefox on a Linux box)
>
>Go to Page Info (Tools menu, or just right-click in the page if you prefer that)
>Select the Media tab
>Select the desired file in the list, and then click the "Save As ..." button.

Using Firefox under XP here, and that does work (the right-click
method, but not the "Tools Menu" method).

Learn something new every day, I guess...

[Jenn]

In article >,
(John Corbett) wrote:

> In article >, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in
> > message
> >
> > om
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Since you didn't get it the first time, let's see if you
> > >> can get this:
> > >>
> > >> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> > >> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> > >> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> > >> The standards for downloads like this are .wav or .mp3
> > >
> > > Since you didn't get it the first time, let's see if you
> > > can get this:
> > >
> > > It IS a .wav file
> > > It IS a .wav file
> > > It IS a .wav file
> > > It IS a .wav file
> >
> > No, it is something that is not visible to web users as a standard .wav
> > file. It's all tied up in apple land.
> >
> > Apparently Jenn, you've never downloaded a .wav file in your life, and so
> > you don't know the difference between a simply downloadable .wav file and
> > the abortion you're tried to foist on the world.
>
> The two files in question ARE .wav files, and anyone who knows how to use
> a web browser should be able to download them without a problem. In fact,
> you don't need to touch a keyboard to do that---it's all just point and
> click, and you don't even need to use the middle or right buttons on a
> mouse. It's so simple a child could do it. However, you may want to wait
> until the mp3 versions get posted---one .wav file is about 20 MB and the
> other is about 50 MB.
>
> First impressions: the recordings sound very nice. I'm not a guitarist,
> so I'm not going to try to be picky about the performance. The recording
> is successful in that I find it easier to listen to the music than to try
> to focus on technical issues of the recording.
>
> --JC

Thanks, John

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> There's a way to circumvent this,* which I used to get the actual .wav files
> which are not the size that has been posted here. In the spirit of John
> Corbett style nit picking I must point out that the files are not 50 and 20
> megabytes as John said, but are instead 50,733 and 21,104 bytes.
>
> The files are very crudely edited with considerable excess head room,

If you wish to be helpful, please explain.

> way to
> much silence at the beginnings

Not if you play the files as they are posted.


> and crudely chopped-off reverb tails.

Especially on the Denver, I know. I wasn't sure if I should just let
them ring until inaudible, or what.

>
> The chopped-off reverb tails suggest to me that as I suspected, the person
> who edited them is losing their hearing.

My God, you're a pitiful little man. I told you that I'm a rookie at
this stuff. The tails are as they are because I'm experimenting with
this stuff. I was also in a hurry to get them done before leaving on my
NAMM trip (where I am tonight). I placed the mics after doing a bit of
reading and getting advice from other guitarists, hit the record button,
played each tune twice, and did some crude editing. I was looking for
advice on the sound quality (should I do something to the room? should
I use more or less reverb? Are the mics too close or too far? etc.)
Once I get better at some of those things, I'll work on the production
values, I'll do several more takes (both of these tunes are pretty new
to me, and they are new arrangements by me. One of the reasons I was
rushing to get them down before NAMM, was so I could get advice on the
arrangements from some of the world-class players in this style who will
be here), be more careful with the editing (which I'm also new to,
remember?), and so forth. But all of this is evidently beyond you.
Some people obviously have a teacher's spirit, and others don't. You
know, if you sent me a recording of your piano playing and asked for
comments on the quality, I would approach the task in an entirely
different way than you have here. And I certainly wouldn't blame errors
caused by your relative lack of experience on a made-up issue of your
hearing. What a jerk you are, Arny.

By the way, want to go get an audiometer test done and compare it with
mine here?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "dizzy" > wrote in message
>
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> >
> >>> I've heard the files on two Windows machines. Perhaps
> >>> you should take yours to a qualified technician.
> >>
> >> Touche.
> >
> > "Touche" my arse.
>
> Hearing them isn't the same as downloading them. Apparently this distinction
> is lost on Jenn.

Did I say that they are the same? I must have missed that. My goal was
for people to be able to hear the files and offer comment on the sound,
that's all. I'm happy that you were able to do that, at last.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message


> Arny....I don't know what your problem is, but Jenn's
> page prompts you to download Quicktime if you don't
> already have it installed and configured, and then
> downloads the wave files and sets up mini-quicktime
> "controls" to play them.

Wrong. I have already quicktime already loaded - the free version. The
prompt that comes up says that I have to give Apple money if I want to save
the file.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>> There's a way to circumvent this,* which I used to get
>> the actual .wav files which are not the size that has
>> been posted here. In the spirit of John Corbett style
>> nit picking I must point out that the files are not 50
>> and 20 megabytes as John said, but are instead 50,733
>> and 21,104 bytes.
>>
>> The files are very crudely edited with considerable
>> excess head room,
>
> If you wish to be helpful, please explain.
>
>> way to
>> much silence at the beginnings

> Not if you play the files as they are posted.

If I do that, it takes more than 3 minutes from when I click the link to the
page until one of them will start playing.

>
>> and crudely chopped-off reverb tails.
>
> Especially on the Denver, I know. I wasn't sure if I
> should just let them ring until inaudible, or what.

Nahh Jenn, you didn't know about this fault until I pointed it out to you.
On Vinyl which you worship, all reverb tails end prematurely because they
are lost in the mud. You're out of the habit of listening to them.

>> The chopped-off reverb tails suggest to me that as I
>> suspected, the person who edited them is losing their
>> hearing.
>
> My God, you're a pitiful little man.

That's it Jenn, I'm tired of your incessant biting of the hand that feeds.
You can go back to talking about me behind my face in public, you
passive-agressive creep! :-(

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>
> >> There's a way to circumvent this,* which I used to get
> >> the actual .wav files which are not the size that has
> >> been posted here. In the spirit of John Corbett style
> >> nit picking I must point out that the files are not 50
> >> and 20 megabytes as John said, but are instead 50,733
> >> and 21,104 bytes.
> >>
> >> The files are very crudely edited with considerable
> >> excess head room,
> >
> > If you wish to be helpful, please explain.
> >
> >> way to
> >> much silence at the beginnings
>
> > Not if you play the files as they are posted.
>
> If I do that, it takes more than 3 minutes from when I click the link to the
> page until one of them will start playing.

Sorry. Go do dishes or something and come back. Or better yet, simply
ignore the whole thing.

>
> >
> >> and crudely chopped-off reverb tails.
> >
> > Especially on the Denver, I know. I wasn't sure if I
> > should just let them ring until inaudible, or what.
>
> Nahh Jenn, you didn't know about this fault until I pointed it out to you.

More BS by Arny.

> On Vinyl which you worship,

More BS by Arny.

> all reverb tails end prematurely because they
> are lost in the mud. You're out of the habit of listening to them.

Whatever you do, make sure that you don't offer something useful, OK?

>
> >> The chopped-off reverb tails suggest to me that as I
> >> suspected, the person who edited them is losing their
> >> hearing.
> >
> > My God, you're a pitiful little man.
>
> That's it Jenn, I'm tired of your incessant biting of the hand that feeds.

What is it that you believe you're "feeding"? And if you want the
"biting" (known by most people as "self defense"), simply stop being a
jerk and offer something useful.

> You can go back to talking about me behind my face in public,

Huh? What is "behind your face"?

> you
> passive-agressive creep! :-(

As opposed to simply aggressive? Does this mean that you'll ignore me
from now on? :-)