reactions to MP3, Red Book, and high-resolution recordings [Archive]

Sean Conolly

September 4th 14, 03:57 AM

> wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote: "Well, it can't /trump/ it, or it wouldn't matter
whether we recorded to LP or
SACD.

Can you name a CD whose sound matches that of the best SACDs or BD-Audio
recordings? "

The mastering matters more than Redbook vs High Res. But looks like I have
another wall to convince of that. smh...

http://www.cnet.com/news/best-sound-quality-does-the-format-really-matter/

Guttenberg in the article: "other words, a great recording on MP3 will
definitely sound better than an overly compressed and processed one as a 192
kHz sample rate, 24 bit FLAC. If the original recording quality was crap,
it's always going to sound like crap."

Well, back in the day we had a technique for make bad recordings sound
better: distance - the more between you and the speaker the better it
sounded. Like the go to the next room, or outside...

Sean

Trevor

September 4th 14, 08:13 AM

On 4/09/2014 9:24 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Michael Lavorgna (author) said it best: "...Perhaps what this
>> article also inadvertently highlights is the fact that the quality
>> of the recording trumps resolution."
>
> Well, it can't /trump/ it, or it wouldn't matter whether we recorded to
> LP or SACD.
>
> Can you name a CD whose sound matches that of the best SACDs or BD-Audio
> recordings?

Sure, any CD produced from the *EXACT SAME* masters only properly
resampled to 16/44. You won't find any commercial examples that I know
of since they *WANT* them to sound different for obvious reasons.

Trevor.

William Sommerwerck

September 4th 14, 10:25 AM

"Trevor" wrote in message ...
On 4/09/2014 9:24 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> Can you name a CD whose sound matches that of the best
>> SACDs or BD-Audio recordings?

> Sure, any CD produced from the *EXACT SAME* masters only properly
> resampled to 16/44. You won't find any commercial examples that
> I know of since they *WANT* them to sound different for obvious reasons.

Well, the Red Book layer of a hybrid SACD comes can come close to the sound of
the SACD layer. But I was talking in general terms.

The question is somewhat unfair, because no matter how good a CD is,
high-resolution recordings offer surround sound, * and all other things being
equal, surround will trounce stereo.

* Nimbus produced many Ambisonic recordings.

Dave Plowman (News)

September 4th 14, 11:23 AM

In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> The question is somewhat unfair, because no matter how good a CD is,
> high-resolution recordings offer surround sound, * and all other things
> being equal, surround will trounce stereo.

Things very rarely are equal, though. Far more chances of cocking things
up with surround.

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

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

Mike Rivers[_2_]

September 4th 14, 11:34 AM

On 9/4/2014 5:25 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> The question is somewhat unfair, because no matter how good a CD is,
> high-resolution recordings offer surround sound, * and all other things
> being equal, surround will trounce stereo.

But all things aren't equal. A surround playback setup is very different
from a stereo playback setup. For one, you can't do it on headphones,
which may just be what the majority of listeners.

All things being equal, live performance in a good space without a sound
system to mess it up trumps all. Next comes a good band playing in a bar
with all their heart and soul.

Can't we just make our own choices of what we listen to and how, and
leave the industry alone as they try to sell us something else?

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

[email protected]

September 4th 14, 01:46 PM

William Sommerwerck wrote: "
The question is somewhat unfair, because no matter how good a CD is,
high-resolution recordings offer surround sound, * and all other things being
equal, surround will trounce stereo. "

How is it unfair? This thread concerns sound quality differences between digital formats, not number of channels.

Besides, I don't exactly want a Surround SACD layer or high-res file that's been brickwalled dynamically compared to the Red Book, which has sometimes been the case.

Surround for music is a gimmick compared to how well the original audio is showcased. Let's undo the damage inflicted in 2.1 before moving on to 5-6.1 etc.

[email protected]

September 4th 14, 01:55 PM

Mike Rivers wrote: "Can't we just make our own choices of what we listen to and how, and
leave the industry alone as they try to sell us something else? "
- show quoted text -

Hell no!! Consumers can control what the industry sells, by becoming informed, and with their voices and wallets.

Les Cargill[_4_]

September 4th 14, 01:56 PM

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Michael Lavorgna (author) said it best: "...Perhaps what this
>> article also inadvertently highlights is the fact that the quality
>> of the recording trumps resolution."
>
> Well, it can't /trump/ it, or it wouldn't matter whether we recorded to
> LP or SACD.
>
> Can you name a CD whose sound matches that of the best SACDs or BD-Audio
> recordings?

How would we know? Is this falsifiable, IOW?

"Sound" is ultimately a neurological phenomenon.

--
Les Cargill

Scott Dorsey

September 4th 14, 02:53 PM

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>wrote in message ...
>
>> Michael Lavorgna (author) said it best: "...Perhaps what this
>> article also inadvertently highlights is the fact that the quality
>> of the recording trumps resolution."
>
>Well, it can't /trump/ it, or it wouldn't matter whether we recorded to LP or
>SACD.
>
>Can you name a CD whose sound matches that of the best SACDs or BD-Audio
>recordings?

I can, the problem is that they are all from audiophile labels that often have
less than stellar performers. Still, some of the later stuff from M-A is
excellent, and the JVC XRCD issues are accurate enough copies of the masters
that you can hear tape artifacts that are completely hidden on typical CD
issues.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey

September 4th 14, 02:59 PM

Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:
>In article >,
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>> The question is somewhat unfair, because no matter how good a CD is,
>> high-resolution recordings offer surround sound, * and all other things
>> being equal, surround will trounce stereo.
>
>Things very rarely are equal, though. Far more chances of cocking things
>up with surround.

This is perfectly true, but it is equally true when talking of stereo versus
mono. And, nevertheless, people have come to accept and expect the benefits
of stereo.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mike Rivers[_2_]

September 4th 14, 03:58 PM

On 9/4/2014 8:55 AM, wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote: "Can't we just make our own choices of what we
> listen to and how, and leave the industry alone as they try to sell
> us something else? "

> Hell no!! Consumers can control what the industry sells, by becoming
> informed, and with their voices and wallets.

It isn't that simple. If you stop buying music, then you won't have
music. If you and your ten friends tell them that you'll buy their high
resolution products, they'll look at current sales and say . . . . nyah,
we're doing just fine with MP3 downloads.

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

William Sommerwerck

September 4th 14, 04:01 PM

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> The question is somewhat unfair, because no matter how good a CD is,
>> high-resolution recordings offer surround sound, * and all other things
>> being equal, surround will trounce stereo.

> Things very rarely are equal, though. Far more chances of cocking things
> up with surround.

I've listened to I-don't-know-how-many SACD surround recordings. I've yet to
hear one I'd consider cocked-up.

As for mono versus stereo... It's probably hrder to make a really good mono
recording than a decent stereo one.

William Sommerwerck

September 4th 14, 04:05 PM

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
On 9/4/2014 5:25 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> The question is somewhat unfair, because no matter how good a CD is,
>> high-resolution recordings offer surround sound, * and all other things
>> being equal, surround will trounce stereo.

> All things being equal, live performance in a good space without a sound
> system to mess it up trumps all.

And surround lets you more-closely approximate that.

> Can't we just make our own choices of what we listen to and how,
> and leave the industry alone as they try to sell us something else?

Most surround recordings include a stereo program.

I don't know how old you are, Mike, but I waited more than 80% of my adult
life for a commercially viable surround-sound system for music to appear.

William Sommerwerck

September 4th 14, 04:10 PM

wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

"The question is somewhat unfair, because no matter how good a CD is,
high-resolution recordings offer surround sound, * and all other things being
equal, surround will trounce stereo."

> How is it unfair? This thread concerns sound quality differences between
> digital formats, not number of channels.

Because the additional channels have a direct effect on the potential sound
quality.

> Besides, I don't exactly want a Surround SACD layer or high-res file that's
> been
> brickwalled dynamically [?] compared to the Red Book, which has sometimes
> been the case.

I don't know what you mean.

> Surround for music is a gimmick compared to how well the original audio
> is showcased. Let's undo the damage inflicted in 2.1 before moving on
> to 5-6.1 etc.

You obviously don't listen to classical music, or you would never say that.

One of the advantages of surround is that it reduces the need to compromise
the "two-channel" part of the recording.

"Let's not rush to stereo before we've perfected mono."

Mike Rivers[_2_]

September 4th 14, 05:26 PM

On 9/4/2014 11:05 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> I don't know how old you are, Mike, but I waited more than 80% of my
> adult life for a commercially viable surround-sound system for music to
> appear.

I'm 72. I finally got a stereo system in about 1970, and still don't
have surround. I don't have a good room to set it up in, and honestly, I
doubt that I'd appreciate it enough to do the work it would take to get
the room ready, get more gear, and find sources.

I've listened to surround at trade shows and most of the time, just
didn't "get" it. I don't want to be up there with the band, I want to be
listening in the hall, bad PA and all. Surround orchestral recordings
may make more sense.

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

Dave Plowman (News)

September 4th 14, 06:43 PM

In article >,
Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> >Things very rarely are equal, though. Far more chances of cocking things
> >up with surround.

> This is perfectly true, but it is equally true when talking of stereo
> versus mono. And, nevertheless, people have come to accept and expect
> the benefits of stereo.

I'm not actually sure that is true. It can be easier to get a nice noise
in stereo than mono.

--
*Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment

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

Dave Plowman (News)

September 4th 14, 06:49 PM

In article >,
Mike Rivers > wrote:
> On 9/4/2014 11:05 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> > I don't know how old you are, Mike, but I waited more than 80% of my
> > adult life for a commercially viable surround-sound system for music to
> > appear.

> I'm 72. I finally got a stereo system in about 1970, and still don't
> have surround. I don't have a good room to set it up in, and honestly, I
> doubt that I'd appreciate it enough to do the work it would take to get
> the room ready, get more gear, and find sources.

I'd rather have a decent listening room and good stereo, than an average
room and surround. And very very few have what I'd call a decent listening
room.

> I've listened to surround at trade shows and most of the time, just
> didn't "get" it. I don't want to be up there with the band, I want to be
> listening in the hall, bad PA and all. Surround orchestral recordings
> may make more sense.

I have been impressed by some classical music and Ambisonics. But the
costs of a decent Ambisonic rig is beyond me. Ordinary surround leaves me
cold. It's for those who only watch movies with 'FX'. I prefer a good
story.

--
*There's no place like www.home.com *

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

William Sommerwerck

September 4th 14, 07:23 PM

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
On 9/4/2014 11:05 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> I don't know how old you are, Mike, but I waited more than
>> 80% of my adult life for a commercially viable surround-sound
>> system for music to appear.

> I'm 72.

Gee, I'm a youn'un -- only 67.

> I've listened to surround at trade shows and most of the time, just didn't
> "get" it. I don't want to be up there with the band, I want to be listening
> in the hall, bad PA and all. Surround orchestral recordings may make more
> sense.

There are two types of surround, which I call "ambient" -- in which the extra
channels supply hall ambience -- and "immersive", in which the performers and
instruments surround you. Both "work", if they're done properly.

I used to demonstrate good surround to friends & acquaintances, and the usual
reaction was "I never want to go back to stereo."

William Sommerwerck

September 4th 14, 07:26 PM

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article >,
Mike Rivers > wrote:
> On 9/4/2014 11:05 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> I'd rather have a decent listening room and good stereo,
> than an average room and surround. And very very few have
> what I'd call a decent listening room.

Ambient surround, using a hall synthesizer, doesn't have to be expensive.

> I have been impressed by some classical music and Ambisonics.
> But the costs of a decent Ambisonic rig is beyond me. Ordinary
> surround leaves me cold. It's for those who only watch movies
> with 'FX'. I prefer a good story.

I have a very nice 6.1 system, and can easily play movies in surround. But I
rarely do. It doesn't add much to the film. For me, surround is mostly for
music.

Don Pearce[_3_]

September 4th 14, 08:08 PM

On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:26:18 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
>In article >,
> Mike Rivers > wrote:
>> On 9/4/2014 11:05 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> I'd rather have a decent listening room and good stereo,
>> than an average room and surround. And very very few have
>> what I'd call a decent listening room.
>
>Ambient surround, using a hall synthesizer, doesn't have to be expensive.
>
>
>> I have been impressed by some classical music and Ambisonics.
>> But the costs of a decent Ambisonic rig is beyond me. Ordinary
>> surround leaves me cold. It's for those who only watch movies
>> with 'FX'. I prefer a good story.
>
>I have a very nice 6.1 system, and can easily play movies in surround. But I
>rarely do. It doesn't add much to the film. For me, surround is mostly for
>music.

The whole proms season from the Albert Hall is being broadcast in
surround on one of our TV channels. The BBC engineers really seem to
understand how to make it sound real, rather than like an effect. Very
impressed

d

[email protected]

September 4th 14, 08:13 PM

William Sommerwerck:

You don't know what I mean? Read this: http://www.cnet.com/news/best-sound-quality-does-the-format-really-matter/

Guess you haven't heard of the loudness war.

Compression or eq will make more of a difference between 16/44 and 24/96 than the formats themselves

Mike Rivers[_2_]

September 4th 14, 09:03 PM

On 9/4/2014 2:26 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> I have a very nice 6.1 system, and can easily play movies in surround.
> But I rarely do. It doesn't add much to the film. For me, surround is
> mostly for music.

Next time I'm in the neighborhood, I'll drop by and you can play me some
great music.

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

William Sommerwerck

September 4th 14, 09:09 PM

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

> The whole proms season from the Albert Hall is being broadcast
> in surround on one of our TV channels. The BBC engineers really
> seem to understand how to make it sound real, rather than like an
> effect. Very impressed.

Most commercial recordings sound like that. You don't "hear" the ambience
channels until they're shut off.

William Sommerwerck

September 4th 14, 09:10 PM

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
On 9/4/2014 2:26 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> I have a very nice 6.1 system, and can easily play movies in surround.
>> But I rarely do. It doesn't add much to the film. For me, surround is
>> mostly for music.

> Next time I'm in the neighborhood, I'll drop by and you can play me
> some great music.

By all means. Just give a few days' warning so I throw out the garbage.

geoff

September 4th 14, 10:08 PM

On 5/09/2014 7:13 a.m., wrote:
> William Sommerwerck:
>
> You don't know what I mean? Read this: http://www.cnet.com/news/best-sound-quality-does-the-format-really-matter/
>
> Guess you haven't heard of the loudness war.
>
>
> Compression or eq will make more of a difference between 16/44 and 24/96 than the formats themselves
>

You've heard of The Loudness War, but unfortunately appear to repeatedly
confuse it with totally unrelated factors and topics.

geoff

geoff

September 4th 14, 10:10 PM

On 5/09/2014 12:55 a.m., wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote: "Can't we just make our own choices of what we listen to and how, and
> leave the industry alone as they try to sell us something else? "
> - show quoted text -
>
>
> Hell no!! Consumers can control what the industry sells, by becoming informed, and with their voices and wallets.
>

That's why McDonalds, KFC, (etc) are such business failures.

geoff

[email protected]

September 4th 14, 11:15 PM

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
You've heard of The Loudness War, but unfortunately appear to repeatedly
confuse it with totally unrelated factors and topics.

geoff "

No I haven't.

These are facts: Both so-called remasters and high-res reissues have had loudness-style dynamics processing and makeup gain applied to them. Not in very instance, but on a lot of them. You don't have to believe it, but I have the DAW screen shots to prove it. The 20th anniversary high-res reissue of Nevermind: http://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind was a good example of "making it sound different enough" for fans to rebuy the thing.

So when someone on this thread brings up an off-topic issue(surround sound), I'm damn well going to suggest fixing bad mastering practices - client-driven or not - before moving on to surround versions of releases in any resolution.

Dave Plowman (News)

September 5th 14, 12:25 AM

In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> > I'd rather have a decent listening room and good stereo,
> > than an average room and surround. And very very few have
> > what I'd call a decent listening room.

> Ambient surround, using a hall synthesizer, doesn't have to be expensive.

Shudder. ;-)

--
*If all is not lost, where the hell is it?

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

None

September 5th 14, 12:33 AM

> wrote in message
...
> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
> You've heard of The Loudness War, but unfortunately appear to
> repeatedly
> confuse it with totally unrelated factors and topics.
>
> geoff "
>
> No I haven't.

Yes you have. You're just riding your hobby horse, without any
understanding of the technical, artistic, and business issues. You're
just beating the **** out of that hobby horse, though. It's probably
the best you can do. Good job, Krissy. Maybe you could do your middle
school science fair project on the loudness wars.

[email protected]

September 5th 14, 12:41 AM

On Thursday, September 4, 2014 7:33:16 PM UTC-4, None wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
>
> > You've heard of The Loudness War, but unfortunately appear to
>
> > repeatedly
>
> > confuse it with totally unrelated factors and topics.
>
> >
>
> > geoff "
>
> >
>
> > No I haven't.
>
>
>
> Yes you have. You're just riding your hobby horse, without any
>
> understanding of the technical, artistic, and business issues. You're
>
> just beating the **** out of that hobby horse, though. It's probably
>
> the best you can do. Good job, Krissy. Maybe you could do your middle
>
> school science fair project on the loudness wars.

Give it up, Alrich.

None

September 5th 14, 01:02 AM

< k baby whines @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
>>
>> Yes you have. You're just riding your hobby horse, without any
>>
>> understanding of the technical, artistic, and business issues.
>> You're
>>
>> just beating the **** out of that hobby horse, though. It's
>> probably
>>
>> the best you can do. Good job, Krissy. Maybe you could do your
>> middle
>>
>> school science fair project on the loudness wars.
>
>
> Give it up, Alrich.

Remember not to respond to me. And try not to fantasize that you know
who I am. Now get on that hobby horse, and ride, little moron ride!

It's the loudness wars, and the idiot rodent-boy is here to do battle
with ... well something unrelated, probably. But it will have kooky
kaps-lock eventually, and he won't have the foggiest notion what he's
drooling about.

Scott Dorsey

September 5th 14, 03:30 AM

Don Pearce > wrote:
>The whole proms season from the Albert Hall is being broadcast in
>surround on one of our TV channels. The BBC engineers really seem to
>understand how to make it sound real, rather than like an effect. Very
>impressed

Sadly that's more than I can say for the sound in the hall.
--scott

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

hank alrich

September 5th 14, 05:32 AM

Jeff Henig > wrote:

> > wrote:
> > William Sommerwerck:
> >
> > You don't know what I mean? Read this:
> > http://www.cnet.com/news/best-sound-quality-does-the-format-really-matter/
> >
> > Guess you haven't heard of the loudness war.
> >
>
> -_-
>
> Stop. Just stop.

He can't becasue he doesn't know what he's doing. If he knew, he could
possibly stop it.

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

Don Pearce[_3_]

September 5th 14, 05:36 AM

On 4 Sep 2014 22:30:46 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>>The whole proms season from the Albert Hall is being broadcast in
>>surround on one of our TV channels. The BBC engineers really seem to
>>understand how to make it sound real, rather than like an effect. Very
>>impressed
>
>Sadly that's more than I can say for the sound in the hall.
>--scott

Have you been? The RAH is a bit of a curate's egg when it comes to
sound, but there are some great seats where the sound is as good as
most halls I've visited. Then there are others - I remember one where
a trumpet player on stage blew a long steady note solo, and I could
have sworn it was coming from behind me.

d

geoff

September 5th 14, 08:54 AM

On 5/09/2014 10:15 a.m., wrote:
> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
> You've heard of The Loudness War, but unfortunately appear to repeatedly
> confuse it with totally unrelated factors and topics.
>
> geoff "
>
> No I haven't.
>
> These are facts: Both so-called remasters and high-res reissues have had loudness-style dynamics processing and makeup gain applied to them. Not in very instance, but on a lot of them. You don't have to believe it, but I have the DAW screen shots to prove it. The 20th anniversary high-res reissue of Nevermind: http://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind was a good example of "making it sound different enough" for fans to rebuy the thing.
>
> So when someone on this thread brings up an off-topic issue(surround sound), I'm damn well going to suggest fixing bad mastering practices - client-driven or not - before moving on to surround versions of releases in any resolution.
>

Dude - all that has NOTHING to do with the media. It has to do with
production.

geoff

[email protected]

September 5th 14, 12:13 PM

geoff wrote: "- hide quoted text -
On 5/09/2014 10:15 a.m., wrote:
> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
> You've heard of The Loudness War, but unfortunately appear to repeatedly
> confuse it with totally unrelated factors and topics.
>
> geoff "
>
> No I haven't.
>
> These are facts: Both so-called remasters and high-res reissues have had loudness-style dynamics processing and makeup gain applied to them. Not in very instance, but on a lot of them. You don't have to believe it, but I have the DAW screen shots to prove it. The 20th anniversary high-res reissue of Nevermind: http://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind was a good example of "making it sound different enough" for fans to rebuy the thing.
>
> So when someone on this thread brings up an off-topic issue(surround sound), I'm damn well going to suggest fixing bad mastering practices - client-driven or not - before moving on to surround versions of releases in any resolution.
>

Dude - all that has NOTHING to do with the media. It has to do with
production.

geoff "

SMH - GEOFF? What have I been saying all this time?

If you export the exact same master to both 16/44 and 24/96 or higher, the differences will be very subtle. Anything you hear more than that means that an altered master(EQ, compression limiting, applied, etc) was exported to one of those two.

My point was, the labels WANT the higher res to sound different, so that consumers *think* they are getting money's worth.

What else of what I was saying did you not get?

Mike Rivers[_2_]

September 5th 14, 12:14 PM

On 9/5/2014 12:36 AM, Don Pearce wrote:

> The RAH is a bit of a curate's egg when it comes to
> sound, but there are some great seats where the sound is as good as
> most halls I've visited. Then there are others - I remember one where
> a trumpet player on stage blew a long steady note solo, and I could
> have sworn it was coming from behind me.

An excellent opportunity for a modern surround recording. ;)

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

Scott Dorsey

September 5th 14, 12:30 PM

Don Pearce > wrote:
>On 4 Sep 2014 22:30:46 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>Don Pearce > wrote:
>>>The whole proms season from the Albert Hall is being broadcast in
>>>surround on one of our TV channels. The BBC engineers really seem to
>>>understand how to make it sound real, rather than like an effect. Very
>>>impressed
>>
>>Sadly that's more than I can say for the sound in the hall.
>
>Have you been? The RAH is a bit of a curate's egg when it comes to
>sound, but there are some great seats where the sound is as good as
>most halls I've visited. Then there are others - I remember one where
>a trumpet player on stage blew a long steady note solo, and I could
>have sworn it was coming from behind me.

I went to the Sibelius 2nd a couple weeks ago, and there was sound
reinforcement going on to try and deal with some of those hall issues,
and I wasn't exactly pleased because it really didn't help some of the
flutter echo.

Mind you, I perpetrated a far worse PA offense the next day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oVVsBlieVM which was a big of an adventure.
This is some guy's random bootleg but even with this you can hear how
over the top the miking was.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey

September 5th 14, 12:31 PM

> wrote:
>
>What else of what I was saying did you not get?

The horse is dead here. It's time to stop it.
--scott

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

None

September 5th 14, 01:02 PM

< moron brat @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> So when someone on this thread brings up an off-topic issue(surround
> sound),

Surround sound is perfectly on-topic in this newsgroup.

> I'm damn well going to suggest fixing bad mastering practices

Whether it's related to the thread or not, you'll mount the fetid
rotting corpse of your hobby horse, and lay in with the riding crop,
which is obviously limp and flaccid. It was clear to all, that you
were a ****ing moron when you first showed up here, but is it possible
that you're even stupider now?

Don Pearce[_3_]

September 5th 14, 01:08 PM

On 5 Sep 2014 07:30:28 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>>On 4 Sep 2014 22:30:46 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>Don Pearce > wrote:
>>>>The whole proms season from the Albert Hall is being broadcast in
>>>>surround on one of our TV channels. The BBC engineers really seem to
>>>>understand how to make it sound real, rather than like an effect. Very
>>>>impressed
>>>
>>>Sadly that's more than I can say for the sound in the hall.
>>
>>Have you been? The RAH is a bit of a curate's egg when it comes to
>>sound, but there are some great seats where the sound is as good as
>>most halls I've visited. Then there are others - I remember one where
>>a trumpet player on stage blew a long steady note solo, and I could
>>have sworn it was coming from behind me.
>
>I went to the Sibelius 2nd a couple weeks ago, and there was sound
>reinforcement going on to try and deal with some of those hall issues,
>and I wasn't exactly pleased because it really didn't help some of the
>flutter echo.
>
>Mind you, I perpetrated a far worse PA offense the next day:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oVVsBlieVM which was a big of an adventure.
>This is some guy's random bootleg but even with this you can hear how
>over the top the miking was.
>--scott

Given the content, I think you can be forgiven. Over-the-top would be
a reasonable description of the event. Don't get the visuals though. I
would have put the orchestra on the big screen and Star Wars on the
smaller ones.

d

[email protected]

September 5th 14, 02:21 PM

Scott Dorsey wrote

"The horse is dead here. It's time to stop it.
- show quoted text -"

So Scott Dorsey here is denying that this:

http://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind

even happened!

The article plainly points out what is the point of higher res audio if labels are requesting processing that makes those editions sound *different*?

But according to Dorsey, it's not really happening. Neither is the loudness race itself. Scott: I'm sure Rupert Murdoch has a job just for you.

You used to impress me as highly intelligent, informative, and helpful Scott - but I'm beginning to think otherwise.

Scott Dorsey

September 5th 14, 02:31 PM

In article >,
> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote
>
>"The horse is dead here. It's time to stop it.
>- show quoted text -"
>
>So Scott Dorsey here is denying that this:
>
>http://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind
>even happened!

No, what I am denying is that it has anything to do with your personal
obsession and that we are all tired of hearing about your personal obsession
and that your incessant and moronic attempts to bring up the loudness wars
in an attempt to disrupt unrelated conversations is doing nothing but damage
to your own cause.

>But according to Dorsey, it's not really happening. Neither is the loudness race itself. Scott: I'm sure Rupert Murdoch has a job just for you.

No, I never said any of that. You are putting words in my mouth, just as
you have put words into the mouths of so many other people here. And your
abusive and heavy-handed tactics are going to make people ignore the loudness
issues that you claim to want to prevent.

>You used to impress me as highly intelligent, informative, and helpful Scott - but I'm beginning to think otherwise.

I don't care what you think about me, I only want you to stop with the abusive
hijacking of threads so you can inject irrelevant garbage. And the reason why
I want you to stop this is because I actually care about loudness problems
and your actions are making people believe that the entire anti-loudness camp
is a bunch of lunatics.

You are like the person on the subway who sits down next to people and grabs
their lapels and screams at them about Jesus at the top of their lungs. This
sort of behaviour does not get religious converts, it only offends potential
converts.
--scott

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

Sean Conolly

September 5th 14, 02:57 PM

> wrote in message
...
> Mike Rivers wrote: "Can't we just make our own choices of what we listen
> to and how, and
> leave the industry alone as they try to sell us something else? "
> - show quoted text -
>
>
> Hell no!! Consumers can control what the industry sells, by becoming
> informed, and with their voices and wallets.

The whole business of Sales and Marketing is making people desire what the
company wants to sell.

Sean

[email protected]

September 5th 14, 02:58 PM

On Friday, September 5, 2014 9:31:51 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article m>,
>
> <
>
> >Scott Dorsey wrote
>
> >
>
> >"The horse is dead here. It's time to stop it.
>
> >- show quoted text -"
>
> >
>
> >So Scott Dorsey here is denying that this:
>
> >
>
> >http://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind
>
> >even happened!
>
>
>
> No, what I am denying is that it has anything to do with your personal
>
> obsession and that we are all tired of hearing about your personal obsession
>
> and that your incessant and moronic attempts to bring up the loudness wars
>
> in an attempt to disrupt unrelated conversations is doing nothing but damage
>
> to your own cause.
>
>
>
> >But according to Dorsey, it's not really happening. Neither is the loudness race itself. Scott: I'm sure Rupert Murdoch has a job just for you.
>
>
>
> No, I never said any of that. You are putting words in my mouth, just as
>
> you have put words into the mouths of so many other people here. And your
>
> abusive and heavy-handed tactics are going to make people ignore the loudness
>
> issues that you claim to want to prevent.
>
>
>
> >You used to impress me as highly intelligent, informative, and helpful Scott - but I'm beginning to think otherwise.
>
>
>
> I don't care what you think about me, I only want you to stop with the abusive
>
> hijacking of threads so you can inject irrelevant garbage. And the reason why
>
> I want you to stop this is because I actually care about loudness problems
>
> and your actions are making people believe that the entire anti-loudness camp
>
> is a bunch of lunatics.
>
>
>
> You are like the person on the subway who sits down next to people and grabs
>
> their lapels and screams at them about Jesus at the top of their lungs. This
>
> sort of behaviour does not get religious converts, it only offends potential
>
> converts.
>
> --scott
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott:

HOW is the concept that 'mastering contributes more to the outcome of the sound than does the format' not relevant here?? I could see if I started posting advice for owners of Honda 2-cycle engines in this thread, you would be more than justified to call me out!

In the O.P.'s test, few people could discern the difference between the same file played back as lossy and various lossless formats.

All I interjected, with links of sources to prove it, was that mastering can, and often does, make the difference between the sound of the same album on red book vs a high-res version of it. I then added that there were commercial reasons for applying processing to the high-res release that were not applied to the original release on CD.

How is that not relevant Scott?!

You just want to squelch the truth, that's your game! Deny any of it is happening. State that someone is trolling or is irrelevant.

Well now I've got you in the same boat as Ian Shepherd("Dynamic Range Day" my ass - as long as it's DR8 it's dynamic enough) - all talk but then denial & hypocrisy.

[email protected]

September 5th 14, 03:01 PM

On Friday, September 5, 2014 9:57:46 AM UTC-4, Sean Conolly wrote:
> <thekmaglegroups.com...
>
> > Mike Rivers wrote: "Can't we just make our own choices of what we listen
>
> > to and how, and
>
> > leave the industry alone as they try to sell us something else? "
>
> > - show quoted text -
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Hell no!! Consumers can control what the industry sells, by becoming
>
> > informed, and with their voices and wallets.
>
>
>
> The whole business of Sales and Marketing is making people desire what the
>
> company wants to sell.
>
>
>
> Sean
______________

And my business is to make people desire what is musically correct, and what to avoid.

hank alrich

September 5th 14, 03:22 PM

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> And
> your abusive and heavy-handed tactics are going to make people ignore
> the loudness issues that you claim to want to prevent.

Unto himself, a loudness problem, his very being.

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

Mike Rivers[_2_]

September 5th 14, 03:45 PM

On 9/5/2014 10:01 AM, wrote:
> And my business is to make people desire what is musically correct, and what to avoid.

Maybe some day when you're as big a rock star as Neil Young, you'll be
able to raise millions of dollars, too. Instead of putting it into a
piece of hardware, you can put it into publicity.

Good luck.

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

John Williamson

September 5th 14, 04:52 PM

On 05/09/2014 15:01, wrote:
> On Friday, September 5, 2014 9:57:46 AM UTC-4, Sean Conolly wrote:
>> The whole business of Sales and Marketing is making people desire what the
>> company wants to sell.
>
> And my business is to make people desire what is musically correct, and what to avoid.
>
So, have you got the guts and knowledge to back your theories by
recording and publishing what you consider to be good quality recordings?

Even I have equipment good enough for that, and my existing website
could be quickly and cheaply modified to accept payment for CDs which I
post out. If your idea of the very best quality is truly what the public
want, you'll make a very good return on your investment. Heck, for
classical and acoustic jazz you can get pretty good results in a good
room by just using one of the Zoom portable recorders with its built in
microphones. They are certainly better quality than most domestic speakers.

For classical music, you can easily set up a mobile rig for a couple of
grand (Decca tree with 3 decent omnis, a mixer and a recorder), maybe
another couple of grand for halfway decent monitors and a laptop to do
the mixing on at home, and CD reproduction is a few tens of pennies per
unit including the printed jewel case labels at the hundred CD price
point, less if you order a couple of thousand. You could reach payback
on the hardware and software within the first thousand units sold, about
double that if you pay musicians like a rock/pop group or chamber
ensemble normal session rates. After the first issue, the hardware
should have been paid for, so the second issue lets you pay more for
better musicians, and so on.

Go for it.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

PStamler

September 5th 14, 06:33 PM

Thekma, all of the experienced audio people here, including Hank, Scott, Mike, et al, are well aware of the loudness wars; I've been reading complaints about toothpaste audio since I started reading the newsgroup back in the 1990s, and have posted some of my own. In short, we know.

The problem is that the people who make the decisions about what gets compressed and what doesn't aren't reading this newsgroup, and aren't paying attention to the engineers who tell them that toothpaste audio sounds awful. So ranting about it here doesn't make a scintilla of difference in what happens out there in the world.

Several years ago I taught a course in the history of audio recording, and introduced four propositions as organizing principles of the course:

1. What people choose to record is what they *can* record.
a. A system with no response below 200Hz won't be used to record pipe organs.
2. What people choose to record is what they believe they can sell.
a. Use Gary's quote from Ahmet Ertegun of Atlantic Records: "I'm not in the business of making records, I'm in the business of selling records."
3. In the marketplace, convenience & price usually beat quality.
a. Witness the cassette and .mp3.
4. Many (but not all) of the people who have run major labels through the 12 or so decades of the recording industry have been dunderheads.
a. Prime example: the War of the Speeds in the late 1940s-early 1950s.

I'd use the loudness wars as supporting evidence for propositions 3 & 4.

So we know about the loudness wars around here. We also aren't in a position to stop them, except on material we self-publish, or can persuade artists to self-publish without crushing it to death.

If you want to organized a boycott of crunched music among consumers, good luck with it. I suspect you'll run up against militant apathy, as most music consumers these days view it as background wallpaper rather than a sensual experience to be enjoyed. Most of the experienced people here, by the way, reject *that* attitude too, but that's where the culture is right now. The late folksinger Dave Van Ronk, when he put on a record for visitors to listen to, would insist that they shut up and listen. For him, music was never background wallpaper. His attitude, unfortunately, has pretty much vanished.

Peace,
Paul

None

September 5th 14, 08:14 PM

> wrote in message
...
> On Friday, September 5, 2014 9:31:51 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> >So Scott Dorsey here is denying that this:

No he isn't. Stop lying about people that know what they're talking
about.

>> >But according to Dorsey, it's not really happening. Neither is the
>> >loudness race itself.

That's not according to Dorsey. He never said any such thing, and
you're a liar.

>> >You used to impress me as highly intelligent, informative, and
>> >helpful Scott - but I'm beginning to think otherwise.

That's more evidence that you're a moron.

> You just want to squelch the truth, that's your game!

Once again, you're a ****ing liar. He's not trying to squelch anything
but your idiotic chimp-hooting.

> Deny any of it is happening.

Nobody's denying it. You're lying again.

State that someone is trolling or is irrelevant.

You are trolling and you're irrelevant. Much of that is because you
have no idea what you're talking about, and you lie about people who
do, rather than learn from them. You're also beading the poor sad
corpse of a hobby horse, of course, of course, that you rode to its
death. You're still riding it. It's dead, Jim.

> Well now I've got you in the same boat as Ian Shepherd("Dynamic
> Range Day" my ass - as long as it's DR8 it's dynamic enough) - all
> talk but then denial & hypocrisy.

I don't think anyone gives a floating **** about which "boat" you're
gibbering about. Yet you keep lying.

None

September 5th 14, 08:23 PM

< the k baby wails @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> And my business is to make people desire what is musically correct,
> and what to avoid.

That's not your business. It's your dementia. You're not in the audio
business any more.

Your job was plugging in projectors in conference rooms ... hehe. So
based on your experience and qualifications in audio, you're looking
for a job as a receptionist or switchboard operator. Good luck with
that, li'l buddy. Don't pretend you have anything to do with audio,
and don't use "we" to refer to mastering engineers, because you are
not one. And you never will be.

William Sommerwerck

September 5th 14, 10:56 PM

"PStamler" wrote in message
...

> The late folksinger Dave Van Ronk, when he put on a record
> for visitors to listen to, would insist that they shut up and listen.
> For him, music was never background wallpaper. His attitude,
> unfortunately, has pretty much vanished.

J Gordon Holt and I had a running joke. I'd say...

"Gordon, I'm going to do something sick, filthy, and perverted."

And he'd respond...

"Yessssss...?"

"I'm going to sit down and actually //listen// to music!"

William Sommerwerck

September 5th 14, 11:22 PM

> These are facts: Both so-called remasters and high-res reissues
> have had loudness-style dynamics processing and makeup gain
> applied to them. Not in very instance, but on a lot of them. You
> don't have to believe it, but I have the DAW screen shots to prove it.
> The 20th anniversary high-res reissue of Nevermind:
> http://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind
> was a good example of "making it sound different enough" for fans to rebuy
> the thing.

How can one respect "musicians" who try to attract listeners by the sheer
volume of their sound? Many classical works have extended loud passages -- but
they don't run the entire work, and nobody listens to them simply //because//
they're loud.

> So when someone on this thread brings up an off-topic issue (surround
> sound),
> I'm damn well going to suggest fixing bad mastering practices --
> client-driven
> or not -- before moving on to surround versions of releases in any
> resolution.

I was the person who started this topic, and brought up surround sound. Which
is hard not to do. *

Surround is intimately tied to high-resolution formats, because the principal
ones (SACD, DVD-A, BD-Audio, and the lossless Dolby & DTS systems) offer at
least five channels, and most have seven.

Consumer surround recordings have existed since late 1969. (That's 1969, not
1989 or 2009.) At that time, classical music was a larger part of the audio
market, and one of the purposes of surround sound was to improve //fidelity//
by capturing the hall sound from the direction it actually arrived. This has
the side benefit of permitting a closer, drier recording of the performers,
without dumping reverb on them.

The problem you (and others) have with your clients is that they have no
appreciation of "acoustic" music. A musical performance is concocted in a dead
studio, with the sound manipulated to produce the desired effects. This isn't
inherently wrong, but -- as is true with most things -- the manipulation has
become the end, not the means. The sound bears little or no relation to what
one might hear live. And by "live", I mean performances in an acoustically
appropriate environment.

What would happen if someone with a grasp of what's required (not I) designed
acoustic environments appropriate for rock? If rockers were introduced to such
environments -- which included both ambient and immersive features -- would
they prefer them?

Given that the brain is wired to enjoy reverberation, they might very well.
The proper use of reverberation should increase music's impact, no lessen it.

You aren't going to get musicians to change the way they record by lecturing
them. You have to demonstrate that "correct" recording techniques (which
aren't much different from the way you'd record classical or jazz) produce a
more-involving musical experience. Until then, they'll continue with what they
know.

* I was talking about new recordings, not necessarily existing ones. I have
several classic rock albums in surround, and none is particularly good, as the
music's treatment was not originally conceived in terms of surround.

S. King

September 6th 14, 12:02 AM

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 07:31:26 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> > wrote:
>>
>>What else of what I was saying did you not get?
>
> The horse is dead here. It's time to stop it.
> --scott

May live is so much better since I plonked themanrocks dude. I still read
some of the responses to his posts for amusement.

Steve King

John Williamson

September 6th 14, 12:04 AM

On 05/09/2014 23:41, Jeff Henig wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>> * I was talking about new recordings, not necessarily existing ones. I
>> have several classic rock albums in surround, and none is particularly
>> good, as the music's treatment was not originally conceived in terms of surround.
>
> Have you heard the Alan Parsons Quad mix of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the
> Moon yet?
>
> I've been thinking of getting the "Immersion Version" they released a few
> years back, largely because I want that mix. But DANG they like that set!
> It's a rather large chunk of change.
>
Yes, but how much will it cost per listen? if you pay a buck for a song
you'll only listen to once a year if that, and ten bucks for a song
you'll listen to every week or two for the next ten years, which is
better value?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson

September 6th 14, 12:17 AM

On 06/09/2014 00:12, Jeff Henig wrote:
> John Williamson > wrote:
>> On 05/09/2014 23:41, Jeff Henig wrote:
>>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>>>> * I was talking about new recordings, not necessarily existing ones. I
>>>> have several classic rock albums in surround, and none is particularly
>>>> good, as the music's treatment was not originally conceived in terms of surround.
>>>
>>> Have you heard the Alan Parsons Quad mix of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the
>>> Moon yet?
>>>
>>> I've been thinking of getting the "Immersion Version" they released a few
>>> years back, largely because I want that mix. But DANG they like that set!
>>> It's a rather large chunk of change.
>>>
>> Yes, but how much will it cost per listen? if you pay a buck for a song
>> you'll only listen to once a year if that, and ten bucks for a song
>> you'll listen to every week or two for the next ten years, which is better value?
>
> True. Of course, I don't download much of my stuff from iTunes or other
> places all that much. I still like having physical product in hand, be it
> vinyl or CD/DVD-A/SACD.
>
I wish I had room for the physical stuff, but as I live on a small boat
at the moment, downloads are the way I need to go, what with the rules
about ripping stuff to HD and selling the original on nowadays. ;-)

The music and video collection I left in the house when I moved out
amounts to about 2 cubic yards.... The music all fits on a thumb drive
at 320 k .mp3 quality, and the video would all fit on a terabyte size HD
at DVD quality

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

geoff

September 6th 14, 04:30 AM

On 6/09/2014 1:58 a.m., wrote:

>
> HOW is the concept that 'mastering contributes more to the outcome of the sound than
>does the format' not relevant here??

Because you relate pretty much everything in this rant (sorry, "thread")
to the Loudness Wars. There are many other far more subtle things that
can be and are done in mastering and remastering - subtler than you
could even imagine.

geoff

geoff

September 6th 14, 04:37 AM

On 6/09/2014 11:36 a.m., Jeff Henig wrote:

> Oh, listen: were I living in cramped quarters like you, that's exactly the
> plan of action I'd take.
>

What you need is a hyper-compressor. Then everything would fit into your
cramped quarters !

geoff

PStamler

September 6th 14, 05:50 AM

There *are* acoustical environments good for rock. They're called "small clubs".

Meanwhile, I remember hearing an electric band recorded with a symphony orchestra, classical style. (I think it was the Concerto for Blues Band and Orchestra.) It sounded swimmy and far away, and had very little visceral impact.

Meanwhile, I've held out the prospect of a guaranteed "A" to the student who can record a really good hip-hop track with live musicians, mixing directly to 2-track. So far no takers.

The thing is, rock and hip-hop developed around the technologies of multi-miking and multi-track recording respectively, and those are the idiomatic ways of recording these styles.

Peace,
Paul

Trevor

September 6th 14, 10:13 AM

On 4/09/2014 7:25 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Trevor" wrote in message ...
> On 4/09/2014 9:24 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> Can you name a CD whose sound matches that of the best
>>> SACDs or BD-Audio recordings?
>
>> Sure, any CD produced from the *EXACT SAME* masters only properly
>> resampled to 16/44. You won't find any commercial examples that
>> I know of since they *WANT* them to sound different for obvious reasons.
>
> Well, the Red Book layer of a hybrid SACD comes can come close to the
> sound of the SACD layer.

It sure can, that's why they generally don't use the same master for
each. It might give the game away!

Trevor.

Trevor

September 6th 14, 10:19 AM

On 4/09/2014 11:59 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>> The question is somewhat unfair, because no matter how good a CD is,
>>> high-resolution recordings offer surround sound, * and all other things
>>> being equal, surround will trounce stereo.
>>
>> Things very rarely are equal, though. Far more chances of cocking things
>> up with surround.
>
> This is perfectly true, but it is equally true when talking of stereo versus
> mono. And, nevertheless, people have come to accept and expect the benefits
> of stereo.

I always prefer good mono to bad stereo, but the simple fact is stereo
is not really much harder than mono to get right these days, so nobody
would bother producing mono because they might "cock up" stereo. If that
were the case you could bet they would cock up mono as well!

Trevor.

S. King

September 6th 14, 04:06 PM

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 21:50:45 -0700, PStamler wrote:

> There *are* acoustical environments good for rock. They're called "small
> clubs".
>
> Meanwhile, I remember hearing an electric band recorded with a symphony
> orchestra, classical style. (I think it was the Concerto for Blues Band
> and Orchestra.) It sounded swimmy and far away, and had very little
> visceral impact.

That was probably The Siegel-Schwall Blues band with the Chicago Symphony
(or the San Francisco Symphony) with Seiji Ozawa conducting a William
Russo composition.

Steve King

hank alrich

September 6th 14, 04:40 PM

John Williamson > wrote:

> On 05/09/2014 15:01, wrote:
> > On Friday, September 5, 2014 9:57:46 AM UTC-4, Sean Conolly wrote:
> >> The whole business of Sales and Marketing is making people desire what the
> >> company wants to sell.
> >
> > And my business is to make people desire what is musically correct, and
> >what to avoid.
> >
> So, have you got the guts and knowledge to back your theories by
> recording and publishing what you consider to be good quality recordings?

The clown has no "business" when it comes to audio. It's a mouth absent
cogent interaction with brain cells.

He knows less than **** about audio, and less than that about music.

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

hank alrich

September 6th 14, 04:40 PM

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> The problem you (and others) have with your clients is that they have no
> appreciation of "acoustic" music.

Ah, the errant generalization. In my case you could be more wrong only
by trying harder.

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

William Sommerwerck

September 6th 14, 04:54 PM

"Trevor" wrote in message ...

> I always prefer good mono to bad stereo, but the simple fact is stereo
> is not really much harder than mono to get right these days, so nobody
> would bother producing mono because they might "cock up" stereo. If
> that were the case you could bet they would cock up mono as well!

I disagree. As I said or suggested elsewhere in this thread, mono is harder to
get right than stereo. The brain is "wired" to hear "space", so stereo has the
"home-court advantage". It's more difficult to achieve a plausible, pleasing
sense of space in mono.

William Sommerwerck

September 6th 14, 05:03 PM

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...

> Have you heard the Alan Parsons quad mix of "Dark Side of the Moon"?

I have both the original Harvest SQ LP, and the surround SACD of a few years
back. Both are "immersive" mixes, but I've never sat down and compared them.
Both make highly effective use of surround.

William Sommerwerck

September 6th 14, 05:05 PM

"hank alrich" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> The problem you (and others) have with your clients is that
>> they have no appreciation of "acoustic" music.

> Ah, the errant generalization. In my case you could be more
> wrong only by trying harder.

I don't mind being wrong. Tell us more about your clients and your experiences
with them.

Les Cargill[_4_]

September 6th 14, 06:10 PM

PStamler wrote:
> There *are* acoustical environments good for rock. They're called
> "small clubs".
>

Well, maybe. They can sound good if care is taken, but it frequently
isn't.

> Meanwhile, I remember hearing an electric band recorded with a
> symphony orchestra, classical style. (I think it was the Concerto for
> Blues Band and Orchestra.) It sounded swimmy and far away, and had
> very little visceral impact.
>
> Meanwhile, I've held out the prospect of a guaranteed "A" to the
> student who can record a really good hip-hop track with live
> musicians, mixing directly to 2-track. So far no takers.
>

That's not really the paradigm there. For hip hop, the turntable is a
live instrument. But there are plenty of hop hoppers
that use live instruments.

> The thing is, rock and hip-hop developed around the technologies of
> multi-miking and multi-track recording respectively, and those are
> the idiomatic ways of recording these styles.
>

Right.

This is hardly new, though - the DVD of Queen in Montreal features
them abandoning the stage while the middle section of Bohemian
Rhapsody plays back on tape.

> Peace, Paul
>
--
Les Cargill

hank alrich

September 6th 14, 09:24 PM

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "hank alrich" wrote in message ...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
> >> The problem you (and others) have with your clients is that
> >> they have no appreciation of "acoustic" music.
>
> > Ah, the errant generalization. In my case you could be more
> > wrong only by trying harder.
>
> I don't mind being wrong. Tell us more about your clients and your experiences
> with them.

William, I have been playing acoustic music on a variety of instruments
for over fifty years. I hear genuinely acoustic music almost every
single day of my life, and in many cases, I hear it up close and
personally, both from myself and the musicians around me.

Yes, over the decades I have also played electronically amplified
instruments with little acoustic output, but none of that negates
thousand of hours immersed not in a post-event "surround sound"
experience, but in the event itself. This, over a huge range of venues,
with and without a huge range of sound systems.

When you start with musicians who play acoustic music, your
generalization is very far afield in most cases. These are people who
are adjusting what they do in real time in response to what they hear
from their own instrument(s) and from the instruments of the players
with whom they are engaged. Appreciation of acoustic music doesn't get
much deeper than that.

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

William Sommerwerck

September 6th 14, 11:46 PM

"hank alrich" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> "hank alrich" wrote in message
> ...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>>>> The problem you (and others) have with your clients is that
>>>> they have no appreciation of "acoustic" music.

>>> Ah, the errant generalization. In my case you could be more
>>> wrong only by trying harder.

>> I don't mind being wrong. Tell us more about your clients and your
>> experiences
>> with them.

> William, I have been playing acoustic music on a variety of instruments
> for over fifty years. I hear genuinely acoustic music almost every
> single day of my life, and in many cases, I hear it up close and
> personally, both from myself and the musicians around me.

> Yes, over the decades I have also played electronically amplified
> instruments with little acoustic output, but none of that negates
> thousand of hours immersed not in a post-event "surround sound"
> experience, but in the event itself. This, over a huge range of venues,
> with and without a huge range of sound systems.

> When you start with musicians who play acoustic music, your
> generalization is very far afield in most cases. These are people who
> are adjusting what they do in real time in response to what they hear
> from their own instrument(s) and from the instruments of the players
> with whom they are engaged. Appreciation of acoustic music doesn't get
> much deeper than that.

Okay. So why can't you get them to "do the right thing"? (That's how I
interpreted what you said.) If you can't get people who appreciate acoustic
music (or at least musically appropriate environments) to do it, what hope is
there for high-quality recordings?

hank alrich

September 7th 14, 06:46 AM

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "hank alrich" wrote in message ...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> > "hank alrich" wrote in message
> > ...
> > William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
> >>>> The problem you (and others) have with your clients is that
> >>>> they have no appreciation of "acoustic" music.
>
> >>> Ah, the errant generalization. In my case you could be more
> >>> wrong only by trying harder.
>
> >> I don't mind being wrong. Tell us more about your clients and your
> >> experiences
> >> with them.
>
> > William, I have been playing acoustic music on a variety of instruments
> > for over fifty years. I hear genuinely acoustic music almost every
> > single day of my life, and in many cases, I hear it up close and
> > personally, both from myself and the musicians around me.
>
> > Yes, over the decades I have also played electronically amplified
> > instruments with little acoustic output, but none of that negates
> > thousand of hours immersed not in a post-event "surround sound"
> > experience, but in the event itself. This, over a huge range of venues,
> > with and without a huge range of sound systems.
>
> > When you start with musicians who play acoustic music, your
> > generalization is very far afield in most cases. These are people who
> > are adjusting what they do in real time in response to what they hear
> > from their own instrument(s) and from the instruments of the players
> > with whom they are engaged. Appreciation of acoustic music doesn't get
> > much deeper than that.
>
> Okay. So why can't you get them to "do the right thing"? (That's how I
> interpreted what you said.) If you can't get people who appreciate acoustic
> music (or at least musically appropriate environments) to do it, what hope is
> there for high-quality recordings?

I get them to do the right thing as I see and hear it, routinely.

Shaidri and I, with Doug Harman on cello, made our little album in an
excellent studio with a superb engineer weidling great kit in a nice
acoustic environment, without headphones, and without overdubs.

The approach to mic placement combined very nice mics up close and a
lovely pair high above the trio, capturing a traditonal stereo image to
be combined with the rest of the tracks at mixdown. But for the violin's
intro on the third section of the medley, a special effect intended to
imply the violin's arrival from a distance, there is no reverb on the
recordings. The "sense of space" is the space, from that stereo pair.

First thing Jerry Tubb asked me was how much was I going to force him to
crush it. He took well to the idea that we weren't going to do that, and
the result often pops out of the car stereo louder than the crushed
stuff.

One very astute engineer who used to post here regularly has several
times sent me messages talking about the sound of the album as it's one
he reaches for when he's put together a new playback system, of
speakers, or of cans. I suspect he is among the few who has a sense of
that stereo pair while listening.

Most folks today are not going to be willing to eschew overdubs, even if
they go without cans. In studios in Austin I regularly hear stuff being
"fixed" that didn't need fixing in the first place. No slight flam in a
pair of rhythm guitars, nor any note deemed analytically not
pitch-perfect will be tolerated. There is no highway. There is only the
dashboard.

I do not have time to rail at this. I marvel and move on, and I work
with people who either tolerate or enjoy my peculiar penchant for
leaving life in the recorded music.

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

None

September 7th 14, 01:56 PM

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> I don't mind being wrong.

Denial.

William Sommerwerck

September 7th 14, 02:23 PM

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...

> And yes, it's a dang good album, both the recording and the performance.

This is "Carry Me Home!"?

William Sommerwerck

September 7th 14, 02:35 PM

"hank alrich" wrote in message ...

> I get them to do the right thing as I see and hear it, routinely.

> First thing Jerry Tubb asked me was how much was I going to
> force him to crush it. He took well to the idea that we weren't
> going to do that, and the result often pops out of the car stereo
> louder than the crushed stuff.

This suggests that impact depends more on the "local dynamics" of the sound,
rather than the "loudness".

> One very astute engineer who used to post here regularly has
> several times sent me messages talking about the sound of the
> album as it's one he reaches for when he's put together a new
> playback system, of speakers, or of cans. I suspect he is among
> the few who has a sense of that stereo pair while listening.

If this is "Carry Me Home!", I've put it on my want list.

Scott Dorsey

September 7th 14, 03:20 PM

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"hank alrich" wrote in message ...
>
>> I get them to do the right thing as I see and hear it, routinely.
>
>> First thing Jerry Tubb asked me was how much was I going to
>> force him to crush it. He took well to the idea that we weren't
>> going to do that, and the result often pops out of the car stereo
>> louder than the crushed stuff.
>
>This suggests that impact depends more on the "local dynamics" of the sound,
>rather than the "loudness".

Right. If you bring all the levels up to a uniform flat line, the end user
adjusts the volume so that flat line is at a comfortable listening level.

Once that is done, the impact of dynamics is gone because there is never
anything any louder than that baseline level.

The argument in favor of crushing is merely that everybody else does it so
when your song is played in rotation, it will be quieter than the comfortable
listening level unless the user adjusts the volume. This is true, although
how much of a problem it is depends a lot on who the end user is and what
they are listening for.

The problem is not the crushing per se: the problem is that a lot of people
have music playing unattended without paying careful attention to it, and
music that is designed for that style of listening has to be devoid of
dynamics because such dynamics will call attention to the music. A track
that is softer than the others calls attention to itself as much as a track
that is louder than the others, and the same goes for a verse or chorus.
--scott

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

Ralph Barone[_2_]

September 8th 14, 01:39 AM

> wrote:
> On Friday, September 5, 2014 9:31:51 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article m>,
>>
>> <
>>
>>> Scott Dorsey wrote
>>
>>>
>>
>>> "The horse is dead here. It's time to stop it.
>>
>>> - show quoted text -"
>>
>>>
>>
>>> So Scott Dorsey here is denying that this:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> http://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind
>>
>>> even happened!
>>
>>
>>
>> No, what I am denying is that it has anything to do with your personal
>>
>> obsession and that we are all tired of hearing about your personal obsession
>>
>> and that your incessant and moronic attempts to bring up the loudness wars
>>
>> in an attempt to disrupt unrelated conversations is doing nothing but damage
>>
>> to your own cause.
>>
>>
>>
>>> But according to Dorsey, it's not really happening. Neither is the
>>> loudness race itself. Scott: I'm sure Rupert Murdoch has a job just for you.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, I never said any of that. You are putting words in my mouth, just as
>>
>> you have put words into the mouths of so many other people here. And your
>>
>> abusive and heavy-handed tactics are going to make people ignore the loudness
>>
>> issues that you claim to want to prevent.
>>
>>
>>
>>> You used to impress me as highly intelligent, informative, and helpful
>>> Scott - but I'm beginning to think otherwise.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't care what you think about me, I only want you to stop with the abusive
>>
>> hijacking of threads so you can inject irrelevant garbage. And the reason why
>>
>> I want you to stop this is because I actually care about loudness problems
>>
>> and your actions are making people believe that the entire anti-loudness camp
>>
>> is a bunch of lunatics.
>>
>>
>>
>> You are like the person on the subway who sits down next to people and grabs
>>
>> their lapels and screams at them about Jesus at the top of their lungs. This
>>
>> sort of behaviour does not get religious converts, it only offends potential
>>
>> converts.
>>
>> --scott
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
>
> Scott:
>
>
> HOW is the concept that 'mastering contributes more to the outcome of the
> sound than does the format' not relevant here?? I could see if I started
> posting advice for owners of Honda 2-cycle engines in this thread, you
> would be more than justified to call me out!
>
>
> In the O.P.'s test, few people could discern the difference between the
> same file played back as lossy and various lossless formats.
>
>
> All I interjected, with links of sources to prove it, was that mastering
> can, and often does, make the difference between the sound of the same
> album on red book vs a high-res version of it. I then added that there
> were commercial reasons for applying processing to the high-res release
> that were not applied to the original release on CD.
>
>
> How is that not relevant Scott?!
>
>
> You just want to squelch the truth, that's your game! Deny any of it is
> happening. State that someone is trolling or is irrelevant.
>
>
> Well now I've got you in the same boat as Ian Shepherd("Dynamic Range
> Day" my ass - as long as it's DR8 it's dynamic enough) - all talk but
> then denial & hypocrisy.

OK, you most definitely jumped the shark with that post.

Gray_Wolf

September 8th 14, 04:39 AM

On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 10:33:46 -0700 (PDT), PStamler >
wrote:

[Snip]

>If you want to organized a boycott of crunched music among consumers, good luck with it. I suspect you'll run up against militant apathy, as most music consumers these days view it as background wallpaper rather than a sensual experience to be enjoyed. Most of the experienced people here, by the way, reject *that* attitude too, but that's where the culture is right now. The late folksinger Dave Van Ronk, when he put on a record for visitors to listen to, would insist that they shut up and listen. For him, music was never background wallpaper. His attitude, unfortunately, has pretty much vanished.
>

A good friend once told me that I expect too much out of people. I
asked what he meant. He said "Have you ever seen a mule run in the
Kentucky Derby?" I quit betting on mules and being ****ed 'cause he
didn't win.

It seems to me that very few people I meet have much of a deep
appreciation for anything. Music, art, photography and so on. Someone
suggested that maybe they could be educated. Another person answered
with "How do you educate a brick?"

To me, It's much more enjoyable to spend time with people who share a
common interest that tilting with windmills. :-) The loudness wars
don't affect me as I don't listen much to that crap to begin with.

Cheers,
GW

Trevor

September 8th 14, 05:36 AM

On 7/09/2014 1:54 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Trevor" wrote in message ...
>> I always prefer good mono to bad stereo, but the simple fact is stereo
>> is not really much harder than mono to get right these days, so nobody
>> would bother producing mono because they might "cock up" stereo. If
>> that were the case you could bet they would cock up mono as well!
>
> I disagree.

Your prerogative.

> As I said or suggested elsewhere in this thread, mono is
> harder to get right than stereo.

Naturally you are entitled to your opinion.

>The brain is "wired" to hear "space",
> so stereo has the "home-court advantage". It's more difficult to achieve
> a plausible, pleasing sense of space in mono.

No argument there, it's very hard to achieve a sense of space in mono.
Pleasing, plausible or otherwise. :-) But many mono recordings sounded,
and still sound just fine without a sense of space.

Trevor.

William Sommerwerck

September 8th 14, 01:37 PM

"Gray_Wolf" wrote in message
...

> It seems to me that very few people I meet have much of a deep
> appreciation for anything. Music, art, photography and so on.
> Someone suggested that maybe they could be educated. Another
> person answered with "How do you educate a brick?"

> To me, It's much more enjoyable to spend time with people who
> share a common interest that tilting with windmills. :-) The loudness
> wars don't affect me as I don't listen much to that crap to begin with.

The problem is that the bad tends to drive out the good. When people hear good
recording and playback, at some will have an earwakening.

[email protected]

September 8th 14, 02:00 PM

Gray_Wolf wrote: "To me, It's much more enjoyable to spend time with people who share a
common interest that tilting with windmills. :-) The loudness wars
don't affect me as I don't listen much to that crap to begin with. "

But in a sense the loudness war already has affected what you listen to or buy to listen to. Mid-1990s early examples of super loud CDs(IE What's the story Morning Glory) triggered a wave of remastering of CDs of legacy artists(pre1990) in response to consumer complaints that discs they'd bought up to that point were "quiet" compared to the new, louder, ones.

That "remastering" trend continues, even though it consists of little more than clipping off 4-8dB of the loudest portions of those older and certainly more dynamic songs, and then applying make-up gain to bring what's left up to 0 full-scale.

And before anyone chimes in with "but the remasters are 24-bit", or, "but original source tapes" were used, let me add: WTF does it matter if better technology or sources were used if the f__ing thing gets half of its dynamic range compressed or brick-walled away, just to compete volume-wise with Imagine Dragons or Jay-Z in someone's playlist?!

I can accomplish that, along with fancy EQ, right at home with Audacity!

So Gray_Wolf, if you want a CD of an artist you like from 1975, you're forced to buy the remaster at the store or even online, unless you scour the second-hand sites, or travel to grass & pavement flea markets on weekends.

[email protected]

September 8th 14, 02:04 PM

9:00 AMme
Gray_Wolf wrote: "To me, It's much more enjoyable to spend time with people who share a
common interest that tilting with windmills. :-) The loudness wars
don't affect me as I don't listen much to that crap to begin with. "

But in a sense the loudness war already has affected what you listen to or buy to listen to. Mid-1990s early examples of super loud CDs(IE What's the story Morning Glory) triggered a wave of remastering of CDs of legacy artists(pre1990) in response to consumer complaints that discs they'd bought up to that point were "quiet" compared to the new, louder, ones.

That "remastering" trend continues, even though it consists of little more than clipping off 4-8dB of the loudest portions of those older and certainly more dynamic songs, and then applying make-up gain to bring what's left up to 0 full-scale.

And before anyone chimes in with "but the remasters are 24-bit", or, "but original source tapes" were used, let me add: WTF does it matter if better technology or sources were used if the f__ing thing gets half of its dynamic range compressed or brick-walled away, just to compete volume-wise with Imagine Dragons or Jay-Z in someone's playlist?!

I can accomplish that, along with fancy EQ, right at home with Audacity!

So Gray_Wolf, if you want a CD of an artist you like from 1975, you're forced to buy the remaster at the store or even online, unless you scour the second-hand sites, or travel to grass & pavement flea markets on weekends to find the first-release on CD.

Scott Dorsey

September 8th 14, 02:28 PM

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>
>No argument there, it's very hard to achieve a sense of space in mono.
>Pleasing, plausible or otherwise. :-) But many mono recordings sounded,
>and still sound just fine without a sense of space.

What you have available to you is a sense of depth. Listen to "Enlloro"
by Carmen Cavallero, there are several different planes although there is
no sense of localization.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[email protected]

September 8th 14, 02:46 PM

Mike Rivers wrote: "I've listened to surround at trade shows and most of the time, just
didn't "get" it. I don't want to be up there with the band, I want to be "

I think the best application of surround in music would be to replicate venue ambience(spectator applause, echo of the mains off the back wall of enclosed spaces, etc.) in recordings of live events. Simulate realistically a location in the audience, not the perspective of the drummer or a keyboardist.

Surround reissues of studio recordings, while exciting in their novelty, are mere 'pan-pot' surround in comparison.

hank alrich

September 8th 14, 04:45 PM

Ralph Barone > wrote:

>
> OK, you most definitely jumped the shark with that post.

He dies in my kill file. Trolling is the whole gig for him. The sooner
he gets no response the sonner he will put his weenie back in his pants
and go haunt another venue.

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

hank alrich

September 8th 14, 04:45 PM

Gray_Wolf > wrote:

> A good friend once told me that I expect too much out of people. I
> asked what he meant. He said "Have you ever seen a mule run in the
> Kentucky Derby?"

That's a keeper. Thanks.

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

hank alrich

September 8th 14, 04:45 PM

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "Gray_Wolf" wrote in message
> ...
>
> > It seems to me that very few people I meet have much of a deep
> > appreciation for anything. Music, art, photography and so on.
> > Someone suggested that maybe they could be educated. Another
> > person answered with "How do you educate a brick?"
>
> > To me, It's much more enjoyable to spend time with people who
> > share a common interest that tilting with windmills. :-) The loudness
> > wars don't affect me as I don't listen much to that crap to begin with.
>
> The problem is that the bad tends to drive out the good. When people hear good
> recording and playback, at some will have an earwakening.

Yes. I have seen that happen with folks who'd not heard decent playback.

I have also seen wonder in people who had never heard a live instrument
played directly in their immediate presence without any ampliication.

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

William Sommerwerck

September 8th 14, 05:06 PM

wrote in message ...

> Surround reissues of studio recordings, while exciting in
> their novelty, are mere 'pan-pot' surround in comparison.

I depends on how you use the tools available to you.

William Sommerwerck

September 8th 14, 05:09 PM

"hank alrich" wrote in message ...

> I have also seen wonder in people who had never heard
> a live instrument played directly in their immediate presence
> without any ampliication.

Live sound has presence and "texture" you rarely hear in recordings.

S. King

September 9th 14, 12:54 AM

On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 08:45:31 -0700, hank alrich wrote:

> Ralph Barone > wrote:
>
>
>> OK, you most definitely jumped the shark with that post.
>
> He dies in my kill file. Trolling is the whole gig for him. The sooner
> he gets no response the sonner he will put his weenie back in his pants
> and go haunt another venue.

Since I plonked him I have avoided about 50 of his postings. Ahhhh! Maybe
a little sip of that great Tequila a shooter friend gave me to celebrate.

Steve King

Gray_Wolf

September 9th 14, 01:46 AM

On Mon, 8 Sep 2014 08:45:32 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Gray_Wolf > wrote:
>
>> A good friend once told me that I expect too much out of people. I
>> asked what he meant. He said "Have you ever seen a mule run in the
>> Kentucky Derby?"
>
>That's a keeper. Thanks.

Another one I like came from an old biker friend.
"If you are gonna be stupid you better be tough."

Cheers

hank alrich

September 9th 14, 05:05 AM

S. King > wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 08:45:31 -0700, hank alrich wrote:
>
> > Ralph Barone > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> OK, you most definitely jumped the shark with that post.
> >
> > He dies in my kill file. Trolling is the whole gig for him. The sooner
> > he gets no response the sonner he will put his weenie back in his pants
> > and go haunt another venue.
>
> Since I plonked him I have avoided about 50 of his postings. Ahhhh! Maybe
> a little sip of that great Tequila a shooter friend gave me to celebrate.
>
> Steve King

Right on!

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

jason

September 18th 14, 03:11 AM

On Mon, 8 Sep 2014 08:45:33 -0700 "hank alrich" > wrote
in article >
-snip-
> Yes. I have seen that happen with folks who'd not heard decent playback.
>
> I have also seen wonder in people who had never heard a live instrument
> played directly in their immediate presence without any ampliication.

Isn't that a hoot!? I make location recordings of local chamber ensembles
and am always surprised and gratified when members of the audience
exclaim their gratitude at having "finally" heard live musicians. (Of
course, my recordings have nothing to do with this reaction - I'm just
glad people are willing to spend a little to hear real musicians
performing real music. Live. My friends who play the music pocket a
little for that experience and they appreciate the appreciation.)

Jason