Guilty of cheating your custommer?

[Luxey]

After I got approval of the mix, I realized I could not find original .wav(s). Maybe I even rendered directly to mp3.
I was to lazy to actually do it again, load all virtual synths and blah blah,..
so I ran mp3(s) through exciter, just to have something moving above 16K on the scope, and now it's all on a commercial CD.

Nobody noticed anything.

In my defence, It was lousy money and ****ty music first place.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Luxey" wrote in message
...

> After I got approval of the mix, I realized I could not find
> original .wav(s). Maybe I even rendered directly to mp3.
> I was to lazy too actually do it again, load all virtual synths
> and blah blah... So I ran mp3(s) through exciter, just to have
> something moving above 16K on the scope, and now it's all
> on a commercial CD.
> Nobody noticed anything.
> In my defence, It was lousy money and ****ty music first place.

Did you consider looking at from the "every cloud has a silver lining"
perspective...?

If the pay was poor and music the lousy, you could have told them what
happened and returned their money. This would have prevented another bad album
from being sold!

[[email protected]]

you know the list that starts out...

lyrics
music
performance
room acoustics

etc...

the exact upper high roll-off frequency is quite low down on that list...

if you helped your client capture lyrics / music/ performance etc that they consider good, then you did not cheat them

Mark

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/22/2014 6:59 PM, Luxey wrote:
> After I got approval of the mix, I realized I could not find original .wav(s). Maybe I even rendered directly to mp3.
> I was to lazy to actually do it again, load all virtual synths and blah blah,..
> so I ran mp3(s) through exciter, just to have something moving above 16K on the scope, and now it's all on a commercial CD.

On an analog multitrack recorder, I once punched in on a vocal track by
accident and erased a line. The singer was from out of town and wasn't
around to fix it right up, so the guitarist who was doing overdubs that
day re-sang the line. He sounded enough like the original singer that we
didn't tell him what had happened.,

Nobody noticed. It helped that neither one was a very great singer,
though it was a good song and a good production.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Luxey]

On Monday, 23 June 2014 14:00:23 UTC+2, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Luxey" wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > After I got approval of the mix, I realized I could not find
>
> > original .wav(s). Maybe I even rendered directly to mp3.
>
> > I was to lazy too actually do it again, load all virtual synths
>
> > and blah blah... So I ran mp3(s) through exciter, just to have
>
> > something moving above 16K on the scope, and now it's all
>
> > on a commercial CD.
>
> > Nobody noticed anything.
>
> > In my defence, It was lousy money and ****ty music first place.
>
>
>
> Did you consider looking at from the "every cloud has a silver lining"
>
> perspective...?
>
>
>
> If the pay was poor and music the lousy, you could have told them what
>
> happened and returned their money. This would have prevented another bad album
>
> from being sold!

I think album will be great, for what it is. We are talking synths and noises
here, not some acoustics and esoteria.

BTW the question was for studio people, if they ever did something like that.
Armchair know it all cross posters from RAO and elsewhere can just as well
keep quiet, for the matter.

[Gray_Wolf]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 15:59:40 -0700 (PDT), Luxey >
wrote:

>After I got approval of the mix, I realized I could not find original .wav(s). Maybe I even rendered directly to mp3.
>I was to lazy to actually do it again, load all virtual synths and blah blah,..
>so I ran mp3(s) through exciter, just to have something moving above 16K on the scope, and now it's all on a commercial CD.
>
>Nobody noticed anything.

Hve you ever had a case where the customer liked the lower quality
version better?

>In my defence, It was lousy money and ****ty music first place.

[Luxey]

понедељак, 23. јун 2014. 16.36.30 UTC+2, Gray_Wolf је написао/ла:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 15:59:40 -0700 (PDT), Luxey >
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >After I got approval of the mix, I realized I could not find original .wav(s). Maybe I even rendered directly to mp3.
>
> >I was to lazy to actually do it again, load all virtual synths and blah blah,..
>
> >so I ran mp3(s) through exciter, just to have something moving above 16K on the scope, and now it's all on a commercial CD.
>
> >
>
> >Nobody noticed anything.
>
>
>
> Hve you ever had a case where the customer liked the lower quality
>
> version better?
>
>
>
> >In my defence, It was lousy money and ****ty music first place.

Actually, in the early days of mp3, some 15 years ago, I witnessed people
prefered mp3s to full resolution. I attributed it to novelty hype and
missunderstanding, not to listening.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/23/2014 4:13 PM, Luxey wrote:
> Actually, in the early days of mp3, some 15 years ago, I witnessed people
> prefered mp3s to full resolution. I attributed it to novelty hype and
> missunderstanding, not to listening.

Fraunhofer did some recent studies, within the last 5 years or so, and
found that a good percentage of listeners preferred an MP3 (bit rate
unspecified) over an unbuggered file. They concluded that it was what
the listeners were accustomed to hearing. Many were young enough to have
never seriously listened to good CDs or even phonograph records. This is
part of the problem.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/23/2014 9:09 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/23/2014 4:13 PM, Luxey wrote:
>> Actually, in the early days of mp3, some 15 years ago, I witnessed people
>> prefered mp3s to full resolution. I attributed it to novelty hype and
>> missunderstanding, not to listening.
>
> Fraunhofer did some recent studies, within the last 5 years or so, and
> found that a good percentage of listeners preferred an MP3 (bit rate
> unspecified) over an unbuggered file. They concluded that it was what
> the listeners were accustomed to hearing. Many were young enough to have
> never seriously listened to good CDs or even phonograph records. This is
> part of the problem.
>
>
Totally goes to the point of education/re-education running in the
"Re: Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV" thread.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...

> Fraunhofer did some recent studies, within the last 5 years or so,
> and found that a good percentage of listeners preferred an MP3
> (bit rate unspecified) over an unbuggered file. They concluded
> that it was what the listeners were accustomed to hearing. Many
> were young enough to have never seriously listened to good CDs
> or even phonograph records. This is part of the problem.

To put it a bit differently... Jazz and classical listeners (the latter,
especially) judge the "quality" of the recording against live sound -- not
other recordings.

An article in a 1958 issue of "Tape Recording" told how an engineer discovered
that some engineers preferred recordings made on wax disks to tape. His
conclusion was that they liked what they were familiar with.

[Scott Dorsey]

Luxey > wrote:
>
>BTW the question was for studio people, if they ever did something like that.
>Armchair know it all cross posters from RAO and elsewhere can just as well
>keep quiet, for the matter.

I never did anything like that without telling my customer. I admit that
at times I may have described the issue in the best possible light. For
example, if the digital recorder was giving hash, you can offer the customer
a free upgrade to the analogue (safety) recording.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 6/23/2014 4:13 PM, Luxey wrote:
>> Actually, in the early days of mp3, some 15 years ago, I witnessed people
>> prefered mp3s to full resolution. I attributed it to novelty hype and
>> missunderstanding, not to listening.
>
>Fraunhofer did some recent studies, within the last 5 years or so, and
>found that a good percentage of listeners preferred an MP3 (bit rate
>unspecified) over an unbuggered file. They concluded that it was what
>the listeners were accustomed to hearing. Many were young enough to have
>never seriously listened to good CDs or even phonograph records. This is
>part of the problem.

I would say it is 100% of the problem. Well, centrally the problem is that
people haven't listened to live acoustic music....
--scott

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

[Luxey]

On Wednesday, 25 June 2014 14:16:44 UTC+2, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Luxey > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >BTW the question was for studio people, if they ever did something like that.
>
> >Armchair know it all cross posters from RAO and elsewhere can just as well
>
> >keep quiet, for the matter.
>
>
>
> I never did anything like that without telling my customer. I admit that
>
> at times I may have described the issue in the best possible light. For
>
> example, if the digital recorder was giving hash, you can offer the customer
>
> a free upgrade to the analogue (safety) recording.
>
> --scott
>
> --
>
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

You are right, if it was the issue I would do that, but this was not a damaged
recording, or lost copy. It was all in the DAW, all saved and recallable.

However, I was quite sure the difference was minimal, if audiable at all,
and really thought another 2-3 hours of loading, rechecking/ listening and
rendering for something I already have, almost certainly nobody will have
a clue, would be too much for my health and quality of my family life.

They are not all .mp3s, though. It's about 50/50 ratio btw 256kbit 44.1Khz joint stereo mp3s and 44.1khz 16bit WAWs.

However, no question, I am guilty and morally challenged.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Mike Rivers > wrote:
> On 6/23/2014 4:13 PM, Luxey wrote:
> > Actually, in the early days of mp3, some 15 years ago, I witnessed people
> > prefered mp3s to full resolution. I attributed it to novelty hype and
> > missunderstanding, not to listening.

> Fraunhofer did some recent studies, within the last 5 years or so, and
> found that a good percentage of listeners preferred an MP3 (bit rate
> unspecified) over an unbuggered file. They concluded that it was what
> the listeners were accustomed to hearing. Many were young enough to have
> never seriously listened to good CDs or even phonograph records. This is
> part of the problem.

I know of several 'professionals' in the TV industry who prefer the sound
of a personal mic to a boom for dialogue. Usually picture editors or
producers. And they seem to have had their wish granted.

--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Mike Rivers
> > wrote:
>> On 6/23/2014 4:13 PM, Luxey wrote:
>>> Actually, in the early days of mp3, some 15 years ago, I witnessed
>>> people prefered mp3s to full resolution. I attributed it to novelty
>>> hype and missunderstanding, not to listening.
>>
>> Fraunhofer did some recent studies, within the last 5 years or so,
>> and found that a good percentage of listeners preferred an MP3 (bit
>> rate unspecified) over an unbuggered file. They concluded that it
>> was what the listeners were accustomed to hearing. Many were young
>> enough to have never seriously listened to good CDs or even
>> phonograph records. This is part of the problem.
>
> I would say it is 100% of the problem. Well, centrally the problem
> is that people haven't listened to live acoustic music....
> --scott
>
Whoa. Too many variables here. Were the MP3 files recordings of live
acoustic music (I'd doubt it)? Were these younger listeners accustomed to
hearing anything *other* than low-fidelity recordings (that would make them
modern-day equivalents to cassette and 45 rpm record listeners of the past)?
Is that "unbuggered file" a full-spectrum punk rock recording (I, too, would
probably prefer an MP3 of that material, since it might filter the shrieks
to make them a bit more mellow)?
--
best regards,

Neil

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

>In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>>On 6/23/2014 4:13 PM, Luxey wrote:
>>> Actually, in the early days of mp3, some 15 years ago, I witnessed people
>>> prefered mp3s to full resolution. I attributed it to novelty hype and
>>> missunderstanding, not to listening.
>>
>>Fraunhofer did some recent studies, within the last 5 years or so, and
>>found that a good percentage of listeners preferred an MP3 (bit rate
>>unspecified) over an unbuggered file. They concluded that it was what
>>the listeners were accustomed to hearing. Many were young enough to have
>>never seriously listened to good CDs or even phonograph records. This is
>>part of the problem.

>I would say it is 100% of the problem. Well, centrally the problem is that
>people haven't listened to live acoustic music....

+1000.

And it's enabled by some unfortunate cultural shifts -- exaggerated stimulation from
all sorts of simultaneous "entertainments" that are mostly synthetic anyway;
inablity to stay focused on one thing for more than a few seconds (or immerse in
something with no distraction, such as a piece of music); really, really ugly sonic
signatures that have arisen in an attempt to be "original" without understanding
what artistic originality means), and on and on it goes.

It's another societal "place" where things have become polarized. The awful gets
even more awful, while the good -- when you can find it -- can be stunning,
breathtaking, and renewing.

Case in point: young singer/songwriter friend of mine is tracking his sixth album,
and I will have the honor to mix it. He's sent refs of some of the completed tracks,
and they are excellent -- performance, composition, lyrical content, sonics -- all
outstanding. It renews one's hope. (And the best news -- he and his lovely wife just
had their first child. It's wonderful that people like that are reproducing.)

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Nate Najar]

On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 8:17:35 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:


>
>
> I would say it is 100% of the problem. Well, centrally the problem is that
>
> people haven't listened to live acoustic music....
>
> --scott

people don't know what music sounds like unless it's coming out of a speaker. I'm amazed when , in many small, casual situations, people insist on amplifying acoustic instruments and their voices through very marginal gear when a completely acoustic event is both sufficient and has superior sound.

It also occurs in major venues. Some of the *major* jazz venues I've worked in around the world insist on miking the drums and amplifying the bass..... for me who plays the second quietest instrument in the world it makes it that much more difficult to amplify. And unnecessary- do you really think the people won't be able to hear the cymbals unless you mike them? mike the guitar, let the rums and bass come off the stand, and have an easy night.

The public also has unrealistic expectations of volume levels used on the fact that recorded/reproduced/amplified music is the norm. See my post above- they want it loud.

because of this, when i'm working in a venue where this will work, I always play a solo selection or two completely unamplified so the audience can hear the real sound of the guitar.....

[docsavage20]

On Sunday, June 22, 2014 6:59:40 PM UTC-4, Luxey wrote:

> In my defence, It was lousy money and ****ty music first place.

Unless it was specified you were going to provide audio that followed a specific production chain is it cheating the customer if they got a product they were satisfied with?

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/25/2014 11:11 AM, Nate Najar wrote:
> people don't know what music sounds like unless it's coming out of a
> speaker. I'm amazed when , in many small, casual situations, people
> insist on amplifying acoustic instruments and their voices through
> very marginal gear when a completely acoustic event is both
> sufficient and has superior sound.
>
> It also occurs in major venues. Some of the*major* jazz venues I've
> worked in around the world insist on miking the drums and amplifying
> the bass.... for me who plays the second quietest instrument in the
> world it makes it that much more difficult to amplify. And
> unnecessary- do you really think the people won't be able to hear the
> cymbals unless you mike them? mike the guitar, let the rums and bass
> come off the stand, and have an easy night.

I've been seeing this at folk festivals for about the past 20 years.
Back into the early 1970s (with exception of such folks as Bob Dylan) a
"workshop" at the Newport Folk Festival was a spot on the grounds with a
post holding up a sign with a number. No stage, no sound system, and a
dozen interested guitarists like me could sit around Merle Travis or
Maybelle Carter or Reverend Gary Davis, listen to some songs, ask how to
play a lick, or hear some great stories. But when they played on the
main stage for 20,000 people, of course they were amplified. And it was
the main stage performances that brought in the money that allowed those
people to be booked at the festival.

Today we have house concerts (some of which, sadly, have PA systems) but
put more than about 150 people in a room with a performer up front and
the "Can't hear you"s will start making everyone uncomfortable. Some of
this is due to the fact that the performers don't learn to perform
without a sound system. They don't sing like they're singing to the back
row, they only know how to sing to a microphone (if even that). Pete
Seeger could sing to 1500 people without a sound system (I've heard him
do that). Taylor Swift, probably not.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[S. King]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:45:14 -0700, docsavage20 wrote:

> On Sunday, June 22, 2014 6:59:40 PM UTC-4, Luxey wrote:
>
>> In my defence, It was lousy money and ****ty music first place.
>
> Unless it was specified you were going to provide audio that followed a
> specific production chain is it cheating the customer if they got a
> product they were satisfied with?

So, was this "cheating the customer"? A client with a deserved reputation
for micro-managing voice actors with word-by-word direction spent two
hours in the studio recording six 60-second radio spots. She then spent
the next 12 hours 'editing' these spots using the 20 or 30 takes of each
spot as source material, a phrase from this take, a word from that take,
the ending 't' sound from one take, the breath from another. You get the
picture. All of this on analogue 1/4-inch tape. Finally, after midnight,
the client left. The engineer had strung together the six spots,but had
not put leaders between the 'hero' takes. In cleaning up he thought he
was cutting some tape off the scrap reel. It was in fact the edited
master now in hundreds of pieces in a waste basket. I get a call at 2 a.m.
with the bad news. I go to the studio. Realizing that there was no way
to put humpty dumpty together again, I suggested we use the last take of
each spot, add the music track, and copy to a 7 1/2 ips reference copy for
the producer and the agency. We deliver the reel and wait to see what
happens. Nothing. Just a call with an order for a couple hundred radio
station reels. The producer had no idea that we hadn't used all of her
word-by-word edited finals. We charged for all tracking, editing, and
copying hours. Were we wrong;-)?

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/25/2014 11:11 AM, Nate Najar wrote:
>> people don't know what music sounds like unless it's coming out of a
>> speaker. I'm amazed when , in many small, casual situations, people
>> insist on amplifying acoustic instruments and their voices through
>> very marginal gear when a completely acoustic event is both
>> sufficient and has superior sound.
>>
>> It also occurs in major venues. Some of the*major* jazz venues I've
>> worked in around the world insist on miking the drums and amplifying
>> the bass.... for me who plays the second quietest instrument in the
>> world it makes it that much more difficult to amplify. And
>> unnecessary- do you really think the people won't be able to hear the
>> cymbals unless you mike them? mike the guitar, let the rums and bass
>> come off the stand, and have an easy night.
>
> I've been seeing this at folk festivals for about the past 20 years.
> Back into the early 1970s (with exception of such folks as Bob Dylan)
> a "workshop" at the Newport Folk Festival was a spot on the grounds
> with a post holding up a sign with a number. No stage, no sound
> system, and a dozen interested guitarists like me could sit around
> Merle Travis or Maybelle Carter or Reverend Gary Davis, listen to
> some songs, ask how to play a lick, or hear some great stories. But
> when they played on the main stage for 20,000 people, of course they
> were amplified. And it was the main stage performances that brought
> in the money that allowed those people to be booked at the festival.
>
> Today we have house concerts (some of which, sadly, have PA systems)
> but put more than about 150 people in a room with a performer up
> front and the "Can't hear you"s will start making everyone
> uncomfortable. Some of this is due to the fact that the performers
> don't learn to perform without a sound system. They don't sing like
> they're singing to the back row, they only know how to sing to a
> microphone (if even that). Pete Seeger could sing to 1500 people
> without a sound system (I've heard him do that). Taylor Swift,
> probably not.
>
I partially blame recording industry practices over the last 50 years for
this. Before most studios had equipment capable of more than 4 tracks, mic
techniques were quite different. Musicians and vocalists were area mic'd and
live-mixed to 2 tracks (or less). Since the late '60s, multi-tracks have
encouraged "close-mic" techniques, which create an entirely different sound.
That sound became the "norm" for all forms of music, to the point that even
live orchestras use sound reinforcement so that they can "sound like the
record" to the audience. I can't wait for them to start including
pitch-bending so that they can do some Stockhausen pieces. ;-P
--
best regards,

Neil

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> Today we have house concerts (some of which, sadly, have PA systems) but
> put more than about 150 people in a room with a performer up front and
> the "Can't hear you"s will start making everyone uncomfortable. Some of
> this is due to the fact that the performers don't learn to perform
> without a sound system.

So much depends on the room. In some cases we can easily perform without
sound, and in others, even in a smaller room, no way. Acoustics and
floorplan matter.

There is also the question of the change of vocal quality when one must
push to fill space, instead of dealing with the lyrics and emotion of
the song without that need to push. Alison Kraus has not a powerful
voice, in terms of SPL. In terms of emotional delivery, we haven't many
contemporary popular singers capable of matching her. In my world, vocal
histrionics don't count. That's not emotion. It's a circus act.

When we must use sound reinforcement I am most pleased when my friend
and long-time associate Fletcher Clark mixes us. You will see a sound
system, and it will be contributing, but you won't hear _it_. He either
puts it just under our own natural SPL coming from the stage, or right
at the point where it equals out output. The result is great room
coverage without a sense of listening to a sound system instead of
listening to musicians.

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

[hank alrich]

S. King > wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:45:14 -0700, docsavage20 wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, June 22, 2014 6:59:40 PM UTC-4, Luxey wrote:
> >
> >> In my defence, It was lousy money and ****ty music first place.
> >
> > Unless it was specified you were going to provide audio that followed a
> > specific production chain is it cheating the customer if they got a
> > product they were satisfied with?
>
> So, was this "cheating the customer"? A client with a deserved reputation
> for micro-managing voice actors with word-by-word direction spent two
> hours in the studio recording six 60-second radio spots. She then spent
> the next 12 hours 'editing' these spots using the 20 or 30 takes of each
> spot as source material, a phrase from this take, a word from that take,
> the ending 't' sound from one take, the breath from another. You get the
> picture. All of this on analogue 1/4-inch tape. Finally, after midnight,
> the client left. The engineer had strung together the six spots,but had
> not put leaders between the 'hero' takes. In cleaning up he thought he
> was cutting some tape off the scrap reel. It was in fact the edited
> master now in hundreds of pieces in a waste basket. I get a call at 2 a.m.
> with the bad news. I go to the studio. Realizing that there was no way
> to put humpty dumpty together again, I suggested we use the last take of
> each spot, add the music track, and copy to a 7 1/2 ips reference copy for
> the producer and the agency. We deliver the reel and wait to see what
> happens. Nothing. Just a call with an order for a couple hundred radio
> station reels. The producer had no idea that we hadn't used all of her
> word-by-word edited finals. We charged for all tracking, editing, and
> copying hours. Were we wrong;-)?

No. You were unheralded world champions.

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/26/2014 10:14 PM, hank alrich wrote:
> So much depends on the room. In some cases we can easily perform without
> sound, and in others, even in a smaller room, no way. Acoustics and
> floorplan matter.

So does venue policy and attentiveness of the audience. Concert venues
are usually pretty good and many could indeed work without sound
reinforcement with the right audience. Bars where there's no "Shut up
when someone's on stage" policy always require sound reinforcement if
even just for those who do shut up and listen.

> There is also the question of the change of vocal quality when one must
> push to fill space, instead of dealing with the lyrics and emotion of
> the song without that need to push. Alison Kraus has not a powerful
> voice, in terms of SPL. In terms of emotional delivery, we haven't many
> contemporary popular singers capable of matching her. In my world, vocal
> histrionics don't count. That's not emotion. It's a circus act.

Alison Kraus should (and does) play concerts, not noisy venues where she
has to impose her sound on those in attendance. Or else, make records
(which she also does). Amplifying her to get above a talkative bar
audience wouldn't help anyone who really wants to hear her. But for
some, a "circus act" is good, and it's part of the show. Of course not
every performer should be like every other performer.

> When we must use sound reinforcement I am most pleased when my friend
> and long-time associate Fletcher Clark mixes us. You will see a sound
> system, and it will be contributing, but you won't hear_it_. He either
> puts it just under our own natural SPL coming from the stage, or right
> at the point where it equals out output. The result is great room
> coverage without a sense of listening to a sound system instead of
> listening to musicians.

You have the good sense to play in places where this works. It probably
wouldn't if you were on next at a bluegrass festival with 10,000 people
screaming for more as Steve Martin with the Steep Canyon Rangers were
leaving the stage. But the pay probably would be great. ;)


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com