Recording and Mixing Questions

[JackA]

Recording:
How are electric guitars recorded? I assume the musician needs his/her amplifier to hear the electric guitar, but is there a Line-Out jack on amplifiers and that is what is tapped into to record? In the "studio" is the amplifier heard? Mainly interest in recordings of the past decades.

Mixing:
While I don't hear it much today's music, I enjoy when I hear panning of drums in a stereo mix. Having seen enough multi-tracks, I assume this panning was typically pre-processed. In other words, I'd find a recorded track with just glitches and that was used for panning (ex: left to right stereo channels). Some may have used multiple microphones, but I don't believe that would suffice for enough stereo separation. True/False?

Mono/Stereo:
While I LOVE stereo reproduction due to its purity of sound, when many multi-tracks became available in the early 70's, many songs seemed mixed more towards monophonic than stereo, Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen etc.. Any possible reasoning for this? I do know, if music isn't well recorded, making fine stereo mixes is difficult.

Thanks!

Jack

[hank alrich]

JackA > wrote:

> Recording: How are electric guitars recorded? I assume the musician needs
> his/her amplifier to hear the electric guitar, but is there a Line-Out
> jack on amplifiers and that is what is tapped into to record? In the
> "studio" is the amplifier heard? Mainly interest in recordings of the past
> decades.

Whatever works in a given situation. All of the above, and more. Look up
"DI box". Look up "Reamping".

> Mixing: While I don't hear it much today's music, I enjoy when I hear
> panning of drums in a stereo mix. Having seen enough multi-tracks, I
> assume this panning was typically pre-processed. In other words, I'd find
> a recorded track with just glitches and that was used for panning (ex:
> left to right stereo channels). Some may have used multiple microphones,
> but I don't believe that would suffice for enough stereo separation.
> True/False?

False, if the engineer wants separation and has the room and the mics
and the knowledge to get that from isolated drum tracks. Overheads are
often tracked in stereo, so there is a stereo image of the whole kit as
part of the mix. Positioning the rest of the mics via panpots should be
done very carefully if one wishes to preserve and exploit that stereo
image.

A pair mics are all that is needed for a stereo capture of drums., or
anything else.

In general, generalizations don't hold up well across the range of
techiniques.

> Mono/Stereo: While I LOVE stereo reproduction due to its purity of sound,

I think I don't understand that statement. There is nothing more
relatively "pure" about stereo recording than mono recording, and
keeping purity intact while using an array of mics can be challenging.

> when many multi-tracks became available in the early 70's, many songs
> seemed mixed more towards monophonic than stereo, Billy Joel, Bruce
> Springsteen etc.. Any possible reasoning for this?

Mono compatibility was crucial for consistent radio broadcast sound.
Most receivers, particularly in cars, default to mono when faced with
multipath distortion of the broadcast signal. If the mix doesn't hold up
in that situation, you're professionaly screwed. The sound will change,
sometimes dramatically, and always for the worse. The listener will
probably change the dial. Down to it, serious program directors and DJ's
would check for that compatibility even before giving the record or CD a
spin. No broadcaster wants listeners changing the dial.

> I do know, if music isn't well recorded, making fine stereo mixes is
> difficult.

It's next to impossible to get marvelous mixes out of crappy tracks,
whether mixing to stereo or monoaural.


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

[PStamler]

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 11:16:12 PM UTC-6, hank alrich wrote:
>
> > when many multi-tracks became available in the early 70's, many songs
> > seemed mixed more towards monophonic than stereo, Billy Joel, Bruce
> > Springsteen etc.. Any possible reasoning for this?
>
> Mono compatibility was crucial for consistent radio broadcast sound.
> Most receivers, particularly in cars, default to mono when faced with
> multipath distortion of the broadcast signal. If the mix doesn't hold up
> in that situation, you're professionaly screwed. The sound will change,
> sometimes dramatically, and always for the worse. The listener will
> probably change the dial. Down to it, serious program directors and DJ's
> would check for that compatibility even before giving the record or CD a
> spin. No broadcaster wants listeners changing the dial.

In addition to what Hank noted, there was another reason in the LP/45 era: recording with wider soundstages were harder to cut to disc.

Peace,
Paul

[geoff]

On 24/01/2015 5:15 p.m., JackA wrote:
> Recording:
> How are electric guitars recorded? I assume the musician needs his/her amplifier to hear the electric guitar,

Most electric guitars are recorded with a microphone on the speaker, as
the amplifier and speaker are usually a distinctive part of the desired
sound.

A guitar can also be recorded dry, then the recording played back
through an amp/speaker, or digital model f such, which gives more
possibilities to change things a little, or a lot.

But the downside of 'reamping' is that the feeling and interaction of
the guitarist with the guitar/amp/speaker combination cannot be there.


geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>
>Thanks for your input. Just a bit dumfounded what I hear on multi-tracks, a=
>nd how they managed to isolate the panned drum piece, that's all. Must have=
> had a quick hand mixing so, generally, the floor tom-toms wouldn't pick up=
> other sounds.

Depends on the style. Sometimes you'll have one overhead and that is 90%
of the drum sound. If the drums are in an isolation booth, there's nothing
but drum in the drum mikes.

Sometimes the whole drum sound comes from the spot mikes, and when that is
the case, the leakage makes up an important part of the sound.

Sometimes, especially in the eighties, the drums will have the crap gated
out of them to eliminate leakage and make them very tight and snappy. It
doesn't sound like a real drum kit, but with fake reverb added it can sound
huge and powerful.

>Let's take, Steve Miller, for example and his Fly Like And Eagle song. Here=
>, I will agree several microphones were used. I tried to arrange the tracks=
> as a typical drum set, 30 second snippet...
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/fly-drums.mp3=20

It was typical in that era to spotmike drums, although if you listen to a
typical mix you'll hear a lot of overhead, a lot of kick, and a lot of snare.

>As for Mono vs Stereo, don't get angry with me, but I stand by "purity" the=
>ory. I wouldn't expect a acoustic guitar to sound as clear in a mono mix, m=
>ixed with a bass guitar, but I would expect better, purer sound, when the t=
>wo were isolated. Maybe Beatles songs, when you dissemble the typical stere=
>o mixes, out comes sounds never heard before. Why is that? Not just me, Han=
>k, but another who contacted me, a recording artist in Canada agrees and wa=
>s amazed.

What is purity? If the tracks were recorded with the intention of being
part of a stereo mix, you can make a good stereo mix from them. If they
were not, your chances of getting realistic stereo is slim.

The Beatles "stereo mixes" from the first four albums were not stereo and
not mixes. Some of the later albums were tracked with stereo in mind and
mixed with stereo in mind.

Remember that the Beatles basically covered three generations of recording
technology.

>As far as radio, FM stereo station always use gadgets to widen stereo, sinc=
>e FM Stereo transmissions lack the separation that vinyl could produce. But=
>, in my 15 or so years in usenet and other, I've only heard two other peopl=
>e even mention what they heard on FM Stereo stations. It tells me, people d=
>on't listen well.

No, the reason why some FM stations used fake stereo gadgets was for people
listening on boom boxes. I haven't seen one in years, though, because most
people today are listening in the car and attempts to exaggerate separation
can really screw with car listening. Also, of course, the more signal you
put into the stereo subcarrier, the less you can put in the main L+R carrier,
so exaggerated stereo effects pull down your overall station loudness.
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 7:41:06 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >
> >Thanks for your input. Just a bit dumfounded what I hear on multi-tracks, a=
> >nd how they managed to isolate the panned drum piece, that's all. Must have=
> > had a quick hand mixing so, generally, the floor tom-toms wouldn't pick up=
> > other sounds.
>
> Depends on the style. Sometimes you'll have one overhead and that is 90%
> of the drum sound. If the drums are in an isolation booth, there's nothing
> but drum in the drum mikes.
>
> Sometimes the whole drum sound comes from the spot mikes, and when that is
> the case, the leakage makes up an important part of the sound.
>
> Sometimes, especially in the eighties, the drums will have the crap gated
> out of them to eliminate leakage and make them very tight and snappy. It
> doesn't sound like a real drum kit, but with fake reverb added it can sound
> huge and powerful.
>
> >Let's take, Steve Miller, for example and his Fly Like And Eagle song. Here=
> >, I will agree several microphones were used. I tried to arrange the tracks=
> > as a typical drum set, 30 second snippet...
> >
> >http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/fly-drums.mp3=20
>
> It was typical in that era to spotmike drums, although if you listen to a
> typical mix you'll hear a lot of overhead, a lot of kick, and a lot of snare.
>
> >As for Mono vs Stereo, don't get angry with me, but I stand by "purity" the=
> >ory. I wouldn't expect a acoustic guitar to sound as clear in a mono mix, m=
> >ixed with a bass guitar, but I would expect better, purer sound, when the t=
> >wo were isolated. Maybe Beatles songs, when you dissemble the typical stere=
> >o mixes, out comes sounds never heard before. Why is that? Not just me, Han=
> >k, but another who contacted me, a recording artist in Canada agrees and wa=
> >s amazed.
>
> What is purity? If the tracks were recorded with the intention of being
> part of a stereo mix, you can make a good stereo mix from them. If they
> were not, your chances of getting realistic stereo is slim.
>
> The Beatles "stereo mixes" from the first four albums were not stereo and
> not mixes. Some of the later albums were tracked with stereo in mind and
> mixed with stereo in mind.


You mean, when more tape tracks became available, proper stereo became a reality. It always bothered me why the Beatles, who were to the US, top dog artists, had warped or lopsided stereo, when others, way ahead of them had DECENT stereo. To make a long story short, SOMEONE mutilated Ringo's drumming. I'm guess, George Martin, so he could gain a decibel or two of loudness. You attempt to mix them in true stereo, and Ringo's drumming sounds like someone is plunging a toilet, no joke. If YOU can find out why, I'd appreciate it. if you need an example, here's one...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/drivecar-drum.mp3

Why didn't you hear that in Mono? Because it was masked or concealed by other sounds.

Jack


>
> Remember that the Beatles basically covered three generations of recording
> technology.
>
> >As far as radio, FM stereo station always use gadgets to widen stereo, sinc=
> >e FM Stereo transmissions lack the separation that vinyl could produce. But=
> >, in my 15 or so years in usenet and other, I've only heard two other peopl=
> >e even mention what they heard on FM Stereo stations. It tells me, people d=
> >on't listen well.
>
> No, the reason why some FM stations used fake stereo gadgets was for people
> listening on boom boxes. I haven't seen one in years, though, because most
> people today are listening in the car and attempts to exaggerate separation
> can really screw with car listening. Also, of course, the more signal you
> put into the stereo subcarrier, the less you can put in the main L+R carrier,
> so exaggerated stereo effects pull down your overall station loudness.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>
>You mean, when more tape tracks became available, proper stereo became a re=
>ality. It always bothered me why the Beatles, who were to the US, top dog a=
>rtists, had warped or lopsided stereo, when others, way ahead of them had D=
>ECENT stereo.

No, it only takes two tape tracks to make good stereo. And that's all many
studios back then had.

But what it takes is to plan the layout out for stereo.

The early Beatles albums were recorded with the intention that those tracks
would be put into a mono mix together, but some idiot in A&R decided that
the 2-track masters could just be released as "stereo mixes." The end
result isn't stereo, and isn't a mix.

The tracks were not originally made with the intention of creating a stereo
mix from them.

Now, there are plenty of other recordings from that era that were tracked
with the intention of releasing in stereo. But the early Beatles albums
were not done with any intention of a stereo mix because there was really
no money in stereo back then.

There were also lots of bands, even into the early seventies, that would
record everything twice. Once for mono mix, once for stereo. It was not
uncommon to see 45s with the stereo version on one side and the mono version
on the other side and the performances slightly different.

>To make a long story short, SOMEONE mutilated Ringo's drummin=
>g. I'm guess, George Martin, so he could gain a decibel or two of loudness.=
> You attempt to mix them in true stereo, and Ringo's drumming sounds like s=
>omeone is plunging a toilet, no joke. If YOU can find out why, I'd apprecia=
>te it. if you need an example, here's one...
>http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/drivecar-drum.mp3

This is because the leakage is appearing at different times in the
two tracks. You can try and advance or delay one of the tracks in order
to reduce the comb filtering, but this is in great part a result of the
original tracks never having been miked with a stereo mix in mind.

The only "mutilation" taking place here is the attempt to make a stereo
mix from tracks that were laid down without the intention of making a
stereo mix.

>Why didn't you hear that in Mono? Because it was masked or concealed by oth=
>er sounds.

Comb filtering is just a thing that you live with when you spotmike
bands that are playing together. The drums leak into the vocal mikes,
the guitars leak into the drum mikes, and they do so at different times
because they are different distances from the mikes.

The leakage can be your friend or your enemy depending on what you are
trying to do and how you're intending on laying out the mix. If you set
up mikes with the intention of mixing one way, you need to be mixing that
way. If you want isolation, you can get it, but you make big sacrifices
to have it, so if you don't need it, you won't bother with it.

These days, with nearly unlimited track counts, it's not unusual for
engineers to just record everything with absolute isolation, but that
has its own set of problems; you can wind up with recordings that have
no sense of ensemble and sound like a bunch of guys playing alone in
little boxes (which is what they are).
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 9:18:06 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >
> >You mean, when more tape tracks became available, proper stereo became a re=
> >ality. It always bothered me why the Beatles, who were to the US, top dog a=
> >rtists, had warped or lopsided stereo, when others, way ahead of them had D=
> >ECENT stereo.
>
> No, it only takes two tape tracks to make good stereo. And that's all many
> studios back then had.
>
> But what it takes is to plan the layout out for stereo.
>
> The early Beatles albums were recorded with the intention that those tracks
> would be put into a mono mix together, but some idiot in A&R decided that
> the 2-track masters could just be released as "stereo mixes." The end
> result isn't stereo, and isn't a mix.
>
> The tracks were not originally made with the intention of creating a stereo
> mix from them.
>
> Now, there are plenty of other recordings from that era that were tracked
> with the intention of releasing in stereo. But the early Beatles albums
> were not done with any intention of a stereo mix because there was really
> no money in stereo back then.
>
> There were also lots of bands, even into the early seventies, that would
> record everything twice. Once for mono mix, once for stereo. It was not
> uncommon to see 45s with the stereo version on one side and the mono version
> on the other side and the performances slightly different.
>
> >To make a long story short, SOMEONE mutilated Ringo's drummin=
> >g. I'm guess, George Martin, so he could gain a decibel or two of loudness.=
> > You attempt to mix them in true stereo, and Ringo's drumming sounds like s=
> >omeone is plunging a toilet, no joke. If YOU can find out why, I'd apprecia=
> >te it. if you need an example, here's one...
> >http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/drivecar-drum.mp3
>
> This is because the leakage is appearing at different times in the
> two tracks.

But ONLY ever found with The Beatles. If you can provide another group with such a mutilated drum track, I'd be grateful.



You can try and advance or delay one of the tracks in order
> to reduce the comb filtering, but this is in great part a result of the
> original tracks never having been miked with a stereo mix in mind.
>
> The only "mutilation" taking place here is the attempt to make a stereo
> mix from tracks that were laid down without the intention of making a
> stereo mix.

I do not agree. But I appreciate your input, sir.

Jack
>
> >Why didn't you hear that in Mono? Because it was masked or concealed by oth=
> >er sounds.
>
> Comb filtering is just a thing that you live with when you spotmike
> bands that are playing together. The drums leak into the vocal mikes,
> the guitars leak into the drum mikes, and they do so at different times
> because they are different distances from the mikes.
>
> The leakage can be your friend or your enemy depending on what you are
> trying to do and how you're intending on laying out the mix. If you set
> up mikes with the intention of mixing one way, you need to be mixing that
> way. If you want isolation, you can get it, but you make big sacrifices
> to have it, so if you don't need it, you won't bother with it.
>
> These days, with nearly unlimited track counts, it's not unusual for
> engineers to just record everything with absolute isolation, but that
> has its own set of problems; you can wind up with recordings that have
> no sense of ensemble and sound like a bunch of guys playing alone in
> little boxes (which is what they are).
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 9:18:06 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> This is because the leakage is appearing at different times in the
>> two tracks.
>
>But ONLY ever found with The Beatles. If you can provide another group with such a mutilated drum track, I'd be grateful.

ALL of them. Any band where everything is recorded together in one room
is going to have leakage, and will have comb filtering if you just bring
all the faders up together.

It's not mutilated, it's just how life is when you record instruments
together in the same room.

> You can try and advance or delay one of the tracks in order
>> to reduce the comb filtering, but this is in great part a result of the
>> original tracks never having been miked with a stereo mix in mind.
>>
>> The only "mutilation" taking place here is the attempt to make a stereo
>> mix from tracks that were laid down without the intention of making a
>> stereo mix.
>
>I do not agree. But I appreciate your input, sir.

Why are you asking questions then, if you don't want to hear the answers?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 11:00:31 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 9:18:06 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >>
> >> This is because the leakage is appearing at different times in the
> >> two tracks.
> >
> >But ONLY ever found with The Beatles. If you can provide another group with such a mutilated drum track, I'd be grateful.
>
> ALL of them. Any band where everything is recorded together in one room
> is going to have leakage, and will have comb filtering if you just bring
> all the faders up together.
>
> It's not mutilated, it's just how life is when you record instruments
> together in the same room.

Thanks, Scott, that was a great help.
>
> > You can try and advance or delay one of the tracks in order
> >> to reduce the comb filtering, but this is in great part a result of the
> >> original tracks never having been miked with a stereo mix in mind.
> >>
> >> The only "mutilation" taking place here is the attempt to make a stereo
> >> mix from tracks that were laid down without the intention of making a
> >> stereo mix.
> >
> >I do not agree. But I appreciate your input, sir.
>
> Why are you asking questions then, if you don't want to hear the answers?

You can give any answer you wish, and I'm grateful, but spare me the lame answers.

Jack

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

[Phil W[_3_]]

JackA:

>> Why are you asking questions then, if you don't want to hear the answers?
>
> You can give any answer you wish, and I'm grateful, but spare me the lame
> answers.

So, there´s a pretty easy formula to it:
just do *not* ask lame questions with weird speculations!

Thank you for leaving this newsgroup!

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> ... Any band where everything is recorded together in one room
> is going to have leakage, and will have comb filtering if you just bring
> all the faders up together.
>
I used EV RE15s in TV orchestras *because* I was mixing leakage. Flat from
all directions, the RE15 gave me "flat" leakage.

Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rgLd6A0DWM

After hearing this, a Pro-Tools/Musician/Friend asked "How many tracks?"

He was somewhat incredulous when I answered "One".

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

[JackA]

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 9:14:34 AM UTC-5, Phil W wrote:
> JackA:
>
> >> Why are you asking questions then, if you don't want to hear the answers?
> >
> > You can give any answer you wish, and I'm grateful, but spare me the lame
> > answers.
>
> So, thereæ„€ a pretty easy formula to it:
> just do *not* ask lame questions with weird speculations!
>
> Thank you for leaving this newsgroup!

Phil, I am very sorry for overloading the capacity of this group. I thought Pro meant Professional. My error.

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
Phil, I am very sorry for overloading the capacity of this group.
I thought Pro meant Professional. My error. "

Ditto. It's proDUCTION.

The only way I could sense a lack of professionalism here is
in the way certain participants react when certain topics are
brought up: You'd think we were insulting their mothers or
their system of worship the way they react!


They are also not very open to alternative scenarios as to why
certain things happened the way they did or are the way they
are. Other than that, I'm sure most participants on here are
quite professional in their particular production roles. :)

[Luxey]

понедељак, 26. јануар 2015. 21.51.50 UTC+1, је напи�ао/ла:
> JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
> Phil, I am very sorry for overloading the capacity of this group.
> I thought Pro meant Professional. My error. "
>
> Ditto. It's proDUCTION.

Talking to yourself, again? Take some meds. Nobody jumped for your "Martin ruined
Ringo's drums for loudness" crap, couple posts above, so could not hold it any more and jumped out of a closet.

Shove it up your own ass and listen yourself scream. That'd be loudness.

[[email protected]]

Luxey wrote: "понедељак, 26. јануар 2015. 21.51.50 UTC+1, је
напи�ао/ла:
>

Talking to yourself, again? Take some meds. Nobody jumped for your "Martin ruined
Ringo's drums for loudness" crap, couple posts above, so could not hold it any more and
jumped out of a closet.

Shove it up your own ass and listen yourself scream. That'd be loudness. "

(^ model rec.audio.pro resident...)

Look at the header of that reply - My handle is not 'JackA' - mister jackasikov!
Unlike Alrich(aka N_ne), I have no need to switch Usenet identities to make my
points.

[JackA]

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 3:51:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
> Phil, I am very sorry for overloading the capacity of this group.
> I thought Pro meant Professional. My error. "
>
> Ditto. It's proDUCTION.
>
> The only way I could sense a lack of professionalism here is
> in the way certain participants react when certain topics are
> brought up: You'd think we were insulting their mothers or
> their system of worship the way they react!
>
>
> They are also not very open to alternative scenarios as to why
> certain things happened the way they did or are the way they
> are. Other than that, I'm sure most participants on here are
> quite professional in their particular production roles. :)

Ha!!! Nice to see a friendly person here!!! But, as I know, there's always a few who play King Of The Hill. I guess I insulted one by saying anyone can mix songs, maybe he took that personally, then I get PLONKED!! Oh, and if someone who is nice talks to me, they think it's me talking to myself, like a sock puppet. Thanks!

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>
>Ha!!! Nice to see a friendly person here!!! But, as I know, there's always =
>a few who play King Of The Hill. I guess I insulted one by saying anyone ca=
>n mix songs, maybe he took that personally, then I get PLONKED!! Oh, and if=
> someone who is nice talks to me, they think it's me talking to myself, lik=
>e a sock puppet. Thanks!

The problem is that for some time we have had a persistent troll in this
group who is constantly railing on about the loudness wars, and what with
your coming in and obviously trolling the group, I think a few people have
confused you with the other troll. You both have bizarre formatting and
no carriage returns and excessive use of exclamation points, but since you
have not mentioned compression and limiting once, I am pretty sure that the
two of you are unrelated.
--scott

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

[Luxey]

понедељак, 26. јануар 2015. 23.17.29 UTC+1, JackA је напи�ао/ла:
> On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 3:51:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
> > Phil, I am very sorry for overloading the capacity of this group.
> > I thought Pro meant Professional. My error. "
> >
> > Ditto. It's proDUCTION.
> >
> > The only way I could sense a lack of professionalism here is
> > in the way certain participants react when certain topics are
> > brought up: You'd think we were insulting their mothers or
> > their system of worship the way they react!
> >
> >
> > They are also not very open to alternative scenarios as to why
> > certain things happened the way they did or are the way they
> > are. Other than that, I'm sure most participants on here are
> > quite professional in their particular production roles. :)
>
> Ha!!! Nice to see a friendly person here!!! But, as I know, there's always a few who play King Of The Hill. I guess I insulted one by saying anyone can mix songs, maybe he took that personally, then I get PLONKED!! Oh, and if someone who is nice talks to me, they think it's me talking to myself, like a sock puppet. Thanks!

Hey, maybe you two could start own group? With black jack and hookers ...

Just forget about this one. And if you are really two, especially thekma.
There's still hope for JackA as he seem to be.

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "The problem is that for some time we have
had a persistent troll in this group who is constantly railing on about
the loudness wars, and what with "

Hey Scott: SCREW YOU. It's related to AUDIO. If I came on
here and whined on and on about under-inflated NFL footballs,
that's off topic, and you'd be in your rights. But I didn't.

We all have our passions within this thing called sound, and mine
is combatting abuse of audio processing tools.

[geoff]

On 27/01/2015 5:23 p.m., wrote:
..
>
> We all have our passions within this thing called sound, and mine
> is combatting abuse of audio processing tools.
>


That's great ! Maybe you could revisit some of the posts that have bent
over backwards to try and explain where your understanding of how and
why this happens is somewhat in error.

geoff

[None]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> but since you
> have not mentioned compression and limiting once

Actually, the "JackAss" troll has mentioned the loudness wars. Krissi
Dum****i didn't take the bait.

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> Scott Dorsey wrote: "The problem is that for some time we have
> had a persistent troll in this group who is constantly railing on
> about
> the loudness wars, and what with "
>
> Hey Scott: SCREW YOU. It's related to AUDIO. If I came on
> here and whined on and on

Hey, what a surprise! The li'l dumb **** is back on his hobbyhorse!
..

[Phil W[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey:

> The problem is that for some time we have had a persistent troll in this
> group who is constantly railing on about the loudness wars, and what with
> your coming in and obviously trolling the group, I think a few people have
> confused you with the other troll.

That´s possible, but it might just be: we already have enough trolls with
bizarre ideas, no clue of the real facts and even more need to tell the
world about it in this newsgroup.

> You both have bizarre formatting and
> no carriage returns and excessive use of exclamation points, but since you
> have not mentioned compression and limiting once, I am pretty sure that
> the
> two of you are unrelated.

There are more of them out there, if you want to believe it or not...

[JackA]

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 7:31:34 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >
> >Ha!!! Nice to see a friendly person here!!! But, as I know, there's always =
> >a few who play King Of The Hill. I guess I insulted one by saying anyone ca=
> >n mix songs, maybe he took that personally, then I get PLONKED!! Oh, and if=
> > someone who is nice talks to me, they think it's me talking to myself, lik=
> >e a sock puppet. Thanks!
>
> The problem is that for some time we have had a persistent troll in this
> group who is constantly railing on about the loudness wars, and what with
> your coming in and obviously trolling the group, I think a few people have
> confused you with the other troll. You both have bizarre formatting and
> no carriage returns and excessive use of exclamation points, but since you
> have not mentioned compression and limiting once, I am pretty sure that the
> two of you are unrelated.


Oh, okay!! :-)

You can't blame me for the formatted text, blame that on the Zionist at Google, who, like the NSA, sees no problem spying on people. There's not a lot left to usenet to subscribe (again) to a NSP. Left EasyNews maybe two years ago. Use to fight a lot with the crew at SuperNews.

But, you should agree, a lot of usenet groups have a selected few regulars, that don't appreciate anyone new. Heck, in the Paint Shop Pro group, even an employee of JASC (Software vendor) wanted to nail me for personal information since he thought I had a pirated copy of Paint Shop Pro.

But, I look for people that can add something of value to what I know.
I just got off YouTube, because I think Neil Young is a shyster with his Pono thing (has that been talked about here?).

Peace offering:

Anyway, The Beatles, Come Together, stereo remixed. If Giles Martin didn't screw with the count-down, whoever's counting isn't a Beatle. I'm sticking to my guns with Billy Preston (he did all the keyboard work) [Wikipedia claims someone else or two].

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/come2gether.mp3

Jack

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

[JackA]

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 8:39:43 AM UTC-5, None wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
> > but since you
> > have not mentioned compression and limiting once
>
> Actually, the "JackAss" troll has mentioned the loudness wars. Krissi
> Dum****i didn't take the bait.

Ha, JackAss! I like it. Where I used to work, I didn't take many vacation days. One day I did and when I retuned, someone wrote on the marking board near my desk, "Jack Off Today!" I would like to talk about Loudness Wars. Because I see the dipwad engineers, like Bob Ludwig, preaching how bad it is, then I hear a John Cougar CD that Bob remastered, left my ears ringing. Let alone, Bob also mixed (or mastered) Sultans of Swing with too low lead vocals - 20 bit mastering, too). Any you wonder why people want vinyl records to return!!

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "I would like to talk about Loudness Wars. Because I
see the dipwad engineers, like Bob Ludwig, preaching how bad it is, then
I hear a John Cougar CD that Bob remastered, left my ears ringing. Let
alone, Bob also mixed (or mastered) Sultans of Swing with too low lead
vocals - 20 bit mastering, too). Any you wonder why people want vinyl
records to return!! "


Jack, some protocol: *Most* mastering engineers smash the crap out
of mixes, or create wonky ones such as you described above, at the
request of artists, producers, or record labels. They are performing a
service. If a customer in a restaurant wants their steak raw or the
consistency of paleolithic coal, the chef either cooks it that way or the
customer never returns to that establishment, plus he may employ
WOM(word of mouth) in telling others not to eat there.


Our beef, therefore, should be with the record labels and with artists
signed to them. I get the feeling this is why Loudness War talk is so
unpopular on usenet groups such as here, and on moderated forums
such as GearSlutz & Steve Hoffman Forums, and Facebook groups like
"End(up to a point!) The Loudness War".

[None]

"JackA" > wrote in message
...
> Oh, okay!! :-)
>
> You can't blame me for the formatted text, blame that on the Zionist
> at Google, who, like the NSA, sees no problem spying on people.

So, you're just confirming that you're a troll.

[None]

"JackA" > wrote in message
...
> Oh, okay!! :-)
>
> You can't blame me for the formatted text, blame that on the Zionist
> at Google, who, like the NSA, sees no problem spying on people.

So, you're just confirming that you're a troll.

[None]

"JackA" > wrote in message
...
> Let alone, Bob also mixed (or mastered) Sultans of Swing with too
> low lead vocals - 20 bit mastering, too).

So you don't know the difference between mixing and mastering. You're
another dumb****.

[None]

< kdumb****i @ google-on-the-short-bus-dot.duuuuuh> wrote in message
...
I get the feeling this is why Loudness War talk is so
> unpopular on usenet groups such as here, and on moderated forums
> such as GearSlutz & Steve Hoffman Forums, and Facebook groups like
> "End(up to a point!) The Loudness War".

So everything you've been told, repeatedly, about why you're unpopular
.... that all went right over your head ... or are you just a
denialist? A denialist dumb ****, that is. Who's fond of hobbyhorse
abuse.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 7:15:23 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "I would like to talk about Loudness Wars. Because I
> see the dipwad engineers, like Bob Ludwig, preaching how bad it is, then
> I hear a John Cougar CD that Bob remastered, left my ears ringing. Let
> alone, Bob also mixed (or mastered) Sultans of Swing with too low lead
> vocals - 20 bit mastering, too). Any you wonder why people want vinyl
> records to return!! "
>
>
> Jack, some protocol: *Most* mastering engineers smash the crap out
> of mixes, or create wonky ones such as you described above, at the
> request of artists, producers, or record labels. They are performing a
> service. If a customer in a restaurant wants their steak raw or the
> consistency of paleolithic coal, the chef either cooks it that way or the
> customer never returns to that establishment, plus he may employ
> WOM(word of mouth) in telling others not to eat there.
>
>
> Our beef, therefore, should be with the record labels and with artists
> signed to them. I get the feeling this is why Loudness War talk is so
> unpopular on usenet groups such as here, and on moderated forums
> such as GearSlutz & Steve Hoffman Forums, and Facebook groups like
> "End(up to a point!) The Loudness War".

Are you saying you have to tread carefully as not to upset someone who may like a particular song or artist (with LOUD sound)?

I've heard one too many audiophile (vinyl) albums to know I'm not your classic audiophile. I don't mind trimming the grass (peaks) if that's what it takes to please my ears.

Yeah, as others, (I, too) was banned (IP blocked, too) from Steve Hoffman's forum. He is as close to an audiophile as I am to being the next Einstein.

Thanks for the info!

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "I don't mind trimming the grass (peaks) if that's what it takes to please my ears. "

Well, we will just have to 'agree to disagree' on that point.

[JackA]

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 7:53:00 PM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
> понедељак, 26. јануар 2015. 23.17.29 UTC+1, JackA је напи�ао/ла:
> > On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 3:51:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > > JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
> > > Phil, I am very sorry for overloading the capacity of this group.
> > > I thought Pro meant Professional. My error. "
> > >
> > > Ditto. It's proDUCTION.
> > >
> > > The only way I could sense a lack of professionalism here is
> > > in the way certain participants react when certain topics are
> > > brought up: You'd think we were insulting their mothers or
> > > their system of worship the way they react!
> > >
> > >
> > > They are also not very open to alternative scenarios as to why
> > > certain things happened the way they did or are the way they
> > > are. Other than that, I'm sure most participants on here are
> > > quite professional in their particular production roles. :)
> >
> > Ha!!! Nice to see a friendly person here!!! But, as I know, there's always a few who play King Of The Hill. I guess I insulted one by saying anyone can mix songs, maybe he took that personally, then I get PLONKED!! Oh, and if someone who is nice talks to me, they think it's me talking to myself, like a sock puppet. Thanks!
>
> Hey, maybe you two could start own group? With black jack and hookers ...
>
> Just forget about this one. And if you are really two, especially thekma.
> There's still hope for JackA as he seem to be.

I feel partly humanoid again!

I do have an array of aliases, because it's dangerous out there! No, not because stolen identity, not because of terrorist, but because of the US Government!

The older gents may chuckle at that, while the youngins say - Where's my iPhone!?

Jack

[geoff]

On 28/01/2015 12:57 p.m., JackA wrote:

>
> Ha, JackAss! I like it. Where I used to work, I didn't take many
> vacation days. One day I did and when I retuned, someone wrote on the
> marking board near my desk, "Jack Off Today!" I would like to talk
> about Loudness Wars. Because I see the dipwad engineers, like Bob
> Ludwig, preaching how bad it is, then I hear a John Cougar CD that
> Bob remastered, left my ears ringing. Let alone, Bob also mixed (or
> mastered) Sultans of Swing with too low lead vocals - 20 bit
> mastering, too). Any you wonder why people want vinyl records to
> return!!
>
> Jack
>

Even 16-bit exceeds vinyl in every aspect.

Lead vocals too quiet is nothing to do with mastering and Bob didn't mix it.

A mix you don't agree with, or mastering you don't agree with will only
sound 'better' on vinyl because something is being lost or masked, or it
was done badly on early digital equipment.

geoff

[Luxey]

Wow, what enormous qquantity of bull**** and ignorance got spilled on our collective head, in previous couple of posts, by both personalities of this troll.

BTW, Come Together was much better mixed than The Joker, it sounded coherent if nothing, but it was so overcompressed, totally unpleasaant for listening (again),
my ears bled. Maybe the 3rd time you get lucky.

[Luxey]

One more thing, I finally listened to Drive Car drum track above and
appart from sounding wonderfully musical as it is, with all the artefacts of
whaatever, to me it sounded as a taambourine only track, ment to be HP filtered
and mixed with whatever else there is. We know nothing about the origin of this
track except what JackA is telling, so we don't know how it was aacheived. It's
well possible it was made not too long ago, for some remixing attempt, where
whole drum set recording was filtered, side chained, gated ... to make pseudo
individual percussion tracks for to mix them "better than the real thing" way.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 3:24:40 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 28/01/2015 12:57 p.m., JackA wrote:
>
> >
> > Ha, JackAss! I like it. Where I used to work, I didn't take many
> > vacation days. One day I did and when I retuned, someone wrote on the
> > marking board near my desk, "Jack Off Today!" I would like to talk
> > about Loudness Wars. Because I see the dipwad engineers, like Bob
> > Ludwig, preaching how bad it is, then I hear a John Cougar CD that
> > Bob remastered, left my ears ringing. Let alone, Bob also mixed (or
> > mastered) Sultans of Swing with too low lead vocals - 20 bit
> > mastering, too). Any you wonder why people want vinyl records to
> > return!!
> >
> > Jack
> >
>
> Even 16-bit exceeds vinyl in every aspect.
>
> Lead vocals too quiet is nothing to do with mastering and Bob didn't mix it.
>
> A mix you don't agree with, or mastering you don't agree with will only
> sound 'better' on vinyl because something is being lost or masked, or it
> was done badly on early digital equipment.
>
> geoff

Geoff,

If it were only myself, then you could say I'm a bit too picky. However, not only did I claim the vocals were too low (THAT IS BOB LUDWIG'S FAULT), but others on Amazon (VIA REVIEWS) heard what I heard. Bob is like many others, he'll master from any source you wish just to make a buck! No wonder why he joined AES, to make him "appear" decent.

Jack

[hank alrich]

> If it were only myself, then you could say I'm a bit too picky. However,
> not only did I claim the vocals were too low (THAT IS BOB LUDWIG'S FAULT),
> but others on Amazon (VIA REVIEWS) heard what I heard. Bob is like many
> others, he'll master from any source you wish just to make a buck! No
> wonder why he joined AES, to make him "appear" decent.
>
> Jack

Note to the forum: if anythiung this this blowhard clown ever posted to
show his incredibly dumbass trolling attempts it is this. Last round for
me, but honestly, folks, don't even bother to **** on him. Basta!

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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 1:43:04 PM UTC-5, hank alrich wrote:
> > If it were only myself, then you could say I'm a bit too picky. However,
> > not only did I claim the vocals were too low (THAT IS BOB LUDWIG'S FAULT),
> > but others on Amazon (VIA REVIEWS) heard what I heard. Bob is like many
> > others, he'll master from any source you wish just to make a buck! No
> > wonder why he joined AES, to make him "appear" decent.
> >
> > Jack
>
> Note to the forum: if anythiung this this blowhard clown ever posted to
> show his incredibly dumbass trolling attempts it is this. Last round for
> me, but honestly, folks, don't even bother to **** on him. Basta!
>
> --
> shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
> HankandShaidriMusic.Com
> YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

Boy, you guitar players aren't very nice! Feel the need to advertise, Hank?

I don't ask people to agree with me, though ...KMA seems to know what side of the fence I'm on with (re)mastering.

Be well, and stifle the childish name calling.

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

Luxey > wrote:
>Wow, what enormous qquantity of bull**** and ignorance got spilled on our collective head, in previous couple of posts, by both personalities of this troll.

No, I am thinking it actually _is_ two different trolls here.

>BTW, Come Together was much better mixed than The Joker, it sounded coherent if nothing, but it was so overcompressed, totally unpleasaant for listening (again),
>my ears bled. Maybe the 3rd time you get lucky.

Get the JVC XRCD issue of The Joker. It is just staggeringly well-done, no
processing to speak of.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

>
> No, I am thinking it actually _is_ two different trolls here.
>

so why feed either one

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "No, you CANNOT achieve the same effect with your volume control."


Once again you misread what I wrote. By achieving the same effect I meant
making it louder over the speakers, not changing the ratio of loud to soft.

To make it loud in the format, you have to remove the loudest transients and
turn up the rest(makeup gain). To make it loud in your room, or car, you just
turn up the VOLUME.

(JackA, see what I have to put up with in here? You'd swear half these people
work for the guvuhmint..smh!)

[Phil W[_3_]]

makolber:

>> No, I am thinking it actually _is_ two different trolls here.
>
> so why feed either one

exactly!

another suggestion would be a dedicated newsgroup for them and others like
them. maybe something called "rec.audio.moron"...

[[email protected]]

Phil W wrote: "
exactly!

another suggestion would be a dedicated newsgroup for them and
others like them. maybe something called "rec.audio.moron"... "

Ok, so we're 'morons' because we dislike practices that make music
sound like ****e! Better than being called a denialist!

[John Williamson]

On 28/01/2015 22:09, wrote:
> Phil W wrote: "
> exactly!
>
> another suggestion would be a dedicated newsgroup for them and
> others like them. maybe something called "rec.audio.moron"... "
>
> Ok, so we're 'morons' because we dislike practices that make music
> sound like ****e! Better than being called a denialist!
>
No, you're a moron because you keep making the same mistakes and getting
the same old dead hobby horse out of the stable over and over again,
hoping that *this* time, you might just convince someone that you know
what you're on about.

Nobody is denying that many modern recordings are highly compressed. You
are the only one that is of the opinion that the recording engineers'
clients (That is to say the record companies and artistes, and
ultimately the listeners) aren't the ones driving this. The engineers,
production staff and studio techs who post here just do what the client
asks, otherwise they don't get paid. It's as simple as that.

I've even been asked by the conductor of a symphony orchestra to
compress and apply make up gain to a performance to "Make it sound louder".

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "You
are the only one that is of the opinion that the recording engineers'
clients (That is to say the record companies and artistes, and
ultimately the listeners) aren't the ones driving this. "

Bull **** - REREAD my John Cougar Mellencamp post above
a couple more times, especially the last paragraph. If YOU
have any reading comprehension skills, you will see who I
blame in that paragraph!

I stopped blaming the engineers a long time ago, and even coached
JackA not to, either, if you would take me off killfile and actually
****ING READ what I posted!

[None]

< krissi dumb****i @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> Phil W wrote: "
> exactly!
>
> another suggestion would be a dedicated newsgroup for them and
> others like them. maybe something called "rec.audio.moron"... "
>
> Ok, so we're 'morons' because we dislike practices that make music
> sound like ****e! Better than being called a denialist!

Nope. You're a moron because you''re a dumb ****. You seem to be the
only one denying that you're a dumb ****. So you're a denialist dumb
****.

[None]

Jersey jackass > wrote in message
...
> On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 7:31:34 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> JackA > wrote:
>> >
>> >Ha!!! Nice to see a friendly person here!!! But, as I know,
>> >there's always =
>> >a few who play King Of The Hill. I guess I insulted one by saying
>> >anyone ca=
>> >n mix songs, maybe he took that personally, then I get PLONKED!!
>> >Oh, and if=
>> > someone who is nice talks to me, they think it's me talking to
>> > myself, lik=
>> >e a sock puppet. Thanks!
>>
>> The problem is that for some time we have had a persistent troll in
>> this
>> group who is constantly railing on about the loudness wars, and
>> what with
>> your coming in and obviously trolling the group, I think a few
>> people have
>> confused you with the other troll. You both have bizarre
>> formatting and
>> no carriage returns and excessive use of exclamation points, but
>> since you
>> have not mentioned compression and limiting once, I am pretty sure
>> that the
>> two of you are unrelated.
>
>
> Oh, okay!! :-)
>
> You can't blame me for the formatted text, blame that on the Zionist
> at Google

Complete confirmation that you're a troll, and a ****ing asshole, too.
Can't you and li'l Krissie get a room somewhere and stop pestering the
grownups?

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Luxey > wrote:
> >Wow, what enormous qquantity of bull**** and ignorance got spilled on our collective head, in previous couple of posts, by both personalities of this troll.
>
> No, I am thinking it actually _is_ two different trolls here.

I never call anyone a troll, because sometimes trolls are more intelligent than the ones calling him or her a troll.
>
> >BTW, Come Together was much better mixed than The Joker, it sounded coherent if nothing, but it was so overcompressed, totally unpleasaant for listening (again),
> >my ears bled. Maybe the 3rd time you get lucky.
>
> Get the JVC XRCD issue of The Joker. It is just staggeringly well-done, no
> processing to speak of.

Are you saying that Capitol and/or Steve Miller (Sailor Music) is only offering the nice sounding CDs to the Japanese? The USA is incapable of topping the Japanese? This is the part that bugs me. I feel, as many do, that an ordinary CD is very capable of reproducing music. Any HQ media stuff is just digitally enhanced. You know Bachman Turner Overdrive, their remixes are only available out of Amazon Canada, for Surround Sound disc.

If I may, let's take a look and listen at BTO's "Not Fragile" CD. It seems most like the most recent mastering which is the loudness...


[Song] You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet!
My friend Mike allowed me to borrow his CD editions. He has the vinyl LP, too.
These are the snapshots of the waveform.
One minute audio snippets of each to follow:

From Bachman-Turner Overdrive - Not Fragile CD album
PD=Polydor (initial release)
CR= Cherry Red (UK) (two albums on one CD, Not Fragile being one)
AF=Audio Fidelity (Kevin Gray mastering using HDCD)
MC=Most recent Mercury (sold only on Amazon Canada)
PDE=Polydor CD digitally Enhanced.
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/uaintseennothing-pd.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/uaintseennothing-cr.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/uaintseennothing-af.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/uaintseennothing-mc.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/uaintseennothing-pde.jpg

One minute snippets to evaluate. ALL "ripped" the same at 320kbps, ALL edited down @ 160kbps
Digital Enhancing using Goldwave software
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/uaintseennothing-pd.mp3
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/uaintseennothing-cr.mp3
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/uaintseennothing-af.mp3
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/uaintseennothing-mc.mp3
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/uaintseennothing-pde.mp3

You tell me which to buy! :)

Jack


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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 4:19:39 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> geoff wrote: "No, you CANNOT achieve the same effect with your volume control."
>
>
> Once again you misread what I wrote. By achieving the same effect I meant
> making it louder over the speakers, not changing the ratio of loud to soft.
>
> To make it loud in the format, you have to remove the loudest transients and
> turn up the rest(makeup gain). To make it loud in your room, or car, you just
> turn up the VOLUME.
>
> (JackA, see what I have to put up with in here? You'd swear half these people
> work for the guvuhmint..smh!)

And the names they use! Last time I checked, you could kill-filter any person you wished. Me, I don't care to call anyone a "troll", because I've seen enough trolls that were very helpful.

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>Are you saying that Capitol and/or Steve Miller (Sailor Music) is only offe=
>ring the nice sounding CDs to the Japanese? The USA is incapable of topping=
> the Japanese? This is the part that bugs me. I feel, as many do, that an o=
>rdinary CD is very capable of reproducing music. Any HQ media stuff is just=
> digitally enhanced. You know Bachman Turner Overdrive, their remixes are o=
>nly available out of Amazon Canada, for Surround Sound disc.

No. JVC put out a line of very high quality CD reissues, under license
from various record labels. That included The Joker, which interestingly
enough was one of only two rock albums they did in the series.

They did the mastering very carefully with excellent playback gear, and
the results sound good.

There is a market in Japan for very high end record releases, including
things like first generation dubs off of master tapes, and there are people
who are willing to pay for them. The majority of this market is for classic
jazz recordings but there is some rock and some classical.

That sort of thing would happen more in the US if people were willing to
pay for it, but we do have labels like Chesky Records that specialize in
doing proper high quality reissues.
--scott


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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:09:20 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Phil W wrote: "
> exactly!
>
> another suggestion would be a dedicated newsgroup for them and
> others like them. maybe something called "rec.audio.moron"... "
>
> Ok, so we're 'morons' because we dislike practices that make music
> sound like ****e! Better than being called a denialist!

I have to admit, lots of past music I like you seldom see this brick-walling mastering. The last closest one I heard was a Japanese CD with the group, The Knack, that was pretty loud! Me, I'd rather heard someone remix the multi-tracks, someone who takes real pride in their work, and doesn't really care about how much he/she gets paid.
In other words, I want a fresh master made, not one that is already close to being spent. This is where I get into several arguments, some are against remixing and believe ONLY an existing master tape should be used. You want the greatest dynamics, remix the multi-tracks. I don't care to hear more tape noise because that is all the had decades ago to mix-down to.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA: The loudness switch you speak of in reply to Geoff works along the lines
of equal loudness per frequency. Our ears are less sensitive to the bottom end,
and somewhat less sensitive to high end, at low to modest listening levels.
Pressing the Loudness button boosts those frequencies modestly, so they
are audible when listening quietly.

See: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Lindos1.svg/2000px-Lindos1.svg.png

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "I never call anyone a troll, because sometimes trolls
are more intelligent than the ones calling him or her a troll. "

Oohhhh snap - Good one, Jack!

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 6:49:00 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >Are you saying that Capitol and/or Steve Miller (Sailor Music) is only offe=
> >ring the nice sounding CDs to the Japanese? The USA is incapable of topping=
> > the Japanese? This is the part that bugs me. I feel, as many do, that an o=
> >rdinary CD is very capable of reproducing music. Any HQ media stuff is just=
> > digitally enhanced. You know Bachman Turner Overdrive, their remixes are o=
> >nly available out of Amazon Canada, for Surround Sound disc.
>
> No. JVC put out a line of very high quality CD reissues, under license
> from various record labels. That included The Joker, which interestingly
> enough was one of only two rock albums they did in the series.
>
> They did the mastering very carefully with excellent playback gear, and
> the results sound good.
>
> There is a market in Japan for very high end record releases, including
> things like first generation dubs off of master tapes, and there are people
> who are willing to pay for them. The majority of this market is for classic
> jazz recordings but there is some rock and some classical.

-- Or is the real reason because the Japanese own a lot in America and buying Japan CDs yields them the greatest profit. You might remember when Sony outsourced the (early) CD work to Japan, many Americans became angry, so they ceased outsourcing. I do have at least one ordinary CD by JVC, and it DOES sound good, but nothing to compare it against.

>
> That sort of thing would happen more in the US if people were willing to
> pay for it, but we do have labels like Chesky Records that specialize in
> doing proper high quality reissues.

So, what costs so much money that Americans would be against "proper" high quality sound? I mean, you find Neil Young touting his Pono thing will put every audio thing to shame!

Why not "rip" a piece (snippet) of The Joker song, so I can hear it, too?

Thanks.

Jack

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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:45:58 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "You
> are the only one that is of the opinion that the recording engineers'
> clients (That is to say the record companies and artistes, and
> ultimately the listeners) aren't the ones driving this. "
>
> Bull **** - REREAD my John Cougar Mellencamp post above
> a couple more times, especially the last paragraph. If YOU
> have any reading comprehension skills, you will see who I
> blame in that paragraph!
>
> I stopped blaming the engineers a long time ago, and even coached
> JackA not to, either, if you would take me off killfile and actually
> ****ING READ what I posted!

KMA, I take special interest with the names who "master" or "remaster" music. I have attempted to contact many, but they do not reply. I bought a (UK) Buddy Holly CD and listened to the audio work a UK person had done, I thought I'd give him some applause on Amazon as part of a CD review. Guess what, he was there posting! I thought, OMG, when do you ever see an "engineer" defending his audio work out in the open!!?? Most just enjoy the cash, and care little about doing their best or waiting for a better source.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "KMA, I "

Sorry, the formatting here cuts off my full handle.
It's 'thekmanrocks"! lol :)

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 7:31:52 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "KMA, I "
>
> Sorry, the formatting here cuts off my full handle.
> It's 'thekmanrocks"! lol :)

LOL!!! Maybe the "regulars" see what I see, you know KMA = Kiss My A** :-)

Jack

[geoff]

On 29/01/2015 11:09 a.m., wrote:
> Phil W wrote: "
> exactly!
>
> another suggestion would be a dedicated newsgroup for them and
> others like them. maybe something called "rec.audio.moron"... "
>
> Ok, so we're 'morons' because we dislike practices that make music
> sound like ****e! Better than being called a denialist!
>


No. For refusing to attempt to comprehend actually why and how the music
is made to sound like ****.


geoff

[None]

"JackA" > wrote in message
...
> You can't blame me for the formatted text, blame that on the Zionist
> at Google,

Here's more proof that JackAss is a troll, and also an asshole. Like
the Dumb****i troll, he can't properly format a Usenet post, and he
doesn't have the balls to take responsibility for his own post. They
blame others for their own stupidity.

Another thing they have in common ... their musical tastes never
seemed to progress much beyond junior high school.

[None]

< dumb****i @ gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> JackA: The loudness ...

<flush>

Maybe you two cretins, Jersy Jerkoff (aka Tweedledunce) and Krissi
Dumb**** (aka Tweedledumb****), could just get a room where you can
molest each other's hobbyhorses in private, instead of smearing your
hobbyhorse**** all over the newsgroup.

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
No. For refusing to attempt to
comprehend actually
why and how the music
is made to sound like ****.


geoff "

I know more about the whys and hows
than some of you give me credit for.
The goal now is to get those forces
to STOP demanding it.

[hank alrich]

> wrote:

> >
> > No, I am thinking it actually _is_ two different trolls here.
> >
>
> so why feed either one

The question is the answer ,and I agree. No need to encourage global
warming.

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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:29:05 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 28/01/2015 22:09, wrote:
> > Phil W wrote: "
> > exactly!
> >
> > another suggestion would be a dedicated newsgroup for them and
> > others like them. maybe something called "rec.audio.moron"... "
> >
> > Ok, so we're 'morons' because we dislike practices that make music
> > sound like ****e! Better than being called a denialist!
> >
> No, you're a moron because you keep making the same mistakes and getting
> the same old dead hobby horse out of the stable over and over again,
> hoping that *this* time, you might just convince someone that you know
> what you're on about.
>
> Nobody is denying that many modern recordings are highly compressed. You
> are the only one that is of the opinion that the recording engineers'
> clients (That is to say the record companies and artistes, and
> ultimately the listeners) aren't the ones driving this. The engineers,
> production staff and studio techs who post here just do what the client
> asks, otherwise they don't get paid. It's as simple as that.
>
> I've even been asked by the conductor of a symphony orchestra to
> compress and apply make up gain to a performance to "Make it sound louder".

You mean, you would do whatever you're told, even if it distorts the sound, just for the sake of making money? No concern of your reputation?

Just curious!!

Jack

>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
You mean, you would do whatever you're told, even if it distorts the sound, just for the sake of making money? No concern of your reputation?

Just curious!!

Jack
- show quoted text -"


Ask the captain of Titanic that question. His boss, director
of the line that owned Titanic, was on that voyage. You know
the rest. ;)

If I were captain, that ship might be a floating museum
someplace, because I'd have told my client - my 'boss' - just
who's running this bloody ship, and I don't CARE if you want
us in by fockin' Tuesday night instead of Wednesday!

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 1/29/2015 8:22 PM, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:29:05 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 28/01/2015 22:09, wrote:
>>> Phil W wrote: "
>>> exactly!
>>>
>>> another suggestion would be a dedicated newsgroup for them and
>>> others like them. maybe something called "rec.audio.moron"... "
>>>
>>> Ok, so we're 'morons' because we dislike practices that make music
>>> sound like ****e! Better than being called a denialist!
>>>
>> No, you're a moron because you keep making the same mistakes and getting
>> the same old dead hobby horse out of the stable over and over again,
>> hoping that *this* time, you might just convince someone that you know
>> what you're on about.
>>
>> Nobody is denying that many modern recordings are highly compressed. You
>> are the only one that is of the opinion that the recording engineers'
>> clients (That is to say the record companies and artistes, and
>> ultimately the listeners) aren't the ones driving this. The engineers,
>> production staff and studio techs who post here just do what the client
>> asks, otherwise they don't get paid. It's as simple as that.
>>
>> I've even been asked by the conductor of a symphony orchestra to
>> compress and apply make up gain to a performance to "Make it sound louder".
>
> You mean, you would do whatever you're told, even if it distorts the sound, just for the sake of making money? No concern of your reputation?
>
> Just curious!!
>
> Jack
>
>>
>> --
>> Tciao for Now!
>>
>> John.
>
Wow, so you'd seriously place distortion avoidance above your well-being?
Reality check: we're talking ENTERTAINMENT industry here ...and you're
talking Top-40 kind of stuff.

==
L...
RC
--

[[email protected]]

Ron C wrote: "- show quoted text -
Wow, so you'd seriously place distortion avoidance above your well-being?
Reality check: we're talking ENTERTAINMENT industry here ...and you're
talking Top-40 kind of stuff.

==
L...
RC
--
"

Yeah, top-40 stuff, like Fleetwood Mac, disco-era Bee Gees, America,
George Benson, not much distortion in that list. Good-sounding pop.
Principles I live by.

"L...
RC" ??

[[email protected]]

Yes Ron: I'd place getting the ship safely into port
above obey Mister Ismay's orders to "light the
remaining boilers and step on it! It's call SPINE
Ron - try getting some if you're in the mastering
business.

[John Williamson]

On 30/01/2015 01:22, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:29:05 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
>> I've even been asked by the conductor of a symphony orchestra to
>> compress and apply make up gain to a performance to "Make it sound louder".
>
> You mean, you would do whatever you're told, even if it distorts the sound, just for the sake of making money? No concern of your reputation?
>
I did as I was requested to, and got paid the agreed sum. The client was
happy, I was happy, and the listeners were presumably happy, as I heard
no more about it.

It still sounded pretty good, with plenty of dynamic range, just not
quite as much as the live performance. I certainly prefer my version to
a reference copy of the same piece I downloaded to see how at least one
other mix engineer did it, which has not only been close mic'd, but has
apparently had most of the channels individually compressed and gated to
remove the low level crud in the room. I also have the uncompressed
version for annoying the neighbours when the organ comes in with all the
stops out.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 8:54:34 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Ron C wrote: "- show quoted text -
> Wow, so you'd seriously place distortion avoidance above your well-being?
> Reality check: we're talking ENTERTAINMENT industry here ...and you're
> talking Top-40 kind of stuff.
>
> ==
> L...
> RC
> --
> "
>
> Yeah, top-40 stuff, like Fleetwood Mac, disco-era Bee Gees, America,
> George Benson, not much distortion in that list. Good-sounding pop.
> Principles I live by.
>
> "L...
> RC" ??

KMA, did you ever check-out Fleetwood Mac's Rumours album, I guess, the CD Deluxe edition? I never found (song) Gold Dust Woman real interesting, but it is sort of sad how they fouled the sound with echo and stuff, the pre-fouled version sounds audiophile like!!! I guess, some people don't know when to quit.

Jack

[JackA]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 5:26:39 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 30/01/2015 01:22, JackA wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:29:05 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> >> I've even been asked by the conductor of a symphony orchestra to
> >> compress and apply make up gain to a performance to "Make it sound louder".
> >
> > You mean, you would do whatever you're told, even if it distorts the sound, just for the sake of making money? No concern of your reputation?
> >
> I did as I was requested to, and got paid the agreed sum. The client was
> happy, I was happy, and the listeners were presumably happy, as I heard
> no more about it.
>
> It still sounded pretty good, with plenty of dynamic range, just not
> quite as much as the live performance. I certainly prefer my version to
> a reference copy of the same piece I downloaded to see how at least one
> other mix engineer did it, which has not only been close mic'd, but has
> apparently had most of the channels individually compressed and gated to
> remove the low level crud in the room. I also have the uncompressed
> version for annoying the neighbours when the organ comes in with all the
> stops out.
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

Okay, John, not criticizing, just wanted to better understand what happened.. Many people I chat with use the "mastering" word as if BIG record companies are still around. What I'm attempting to say is, certain terms are still used, but I feel the practices have stopped. Like, one person would "mix", another would "master", because it was too much work for any one person back in the good ol' days. I always thought remastering should include remixing. Today, I feel most do it all. Steven Wilson, I guess, out your way, has done some nice remixing of past popular songs. Others, like Steve Hoffman, claim you should not mess with a precious sounding master. Yet, I have CDs with Steve Hoffman has remixed past hits.

Thanks for sharing.

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>Okay, John, not criticizing, just wanted to better understand what happened=
>. Many people I chat with use the "mastering" word as if BIG record compani=
>es are still around. What I'm attempting to say is, certain terms are still=
> used, but I feel the practices have stopped. Like, one person would "mix",=
> another would "master", because it was too much work for any one person ba=
>ck in the good ol' days.

This is still the case. It is very rare for an engineer to do his own
mastering work. The whole point of the mastering engineer is to provide a
last check on sound quality and do have a second set of ears evaluate
everything.

Check the credits on the back of the CDs that you listen to.

Now, it is less common for the recording engineer, or the producer, to
attend the mastering session with the mastering engineer (cutting engineer).
That's definitely a problem today, because the interplay between these people
is important, and it is always interesting to get into the mastering suite
and hear things that you never heard on the studio monitors (often because
you didn't notice them until the mastering engineer pointed them out).

> I always thought remastering should include remixi=
> ng. Today, I feel most do it all. Steven Wilson, I guess, out your way, has=
> done some nice remixing of past popular songs. Others, like Steve Hoffman,=
> claim you should not mess with a precious sounding master. Yet, I have CDs=
> with Steve Hoffman has remixed past hits.

Why? If it sounds good, why touch it, especially when the people doing the
remixing may have a totally different vision than the original crew?

Often today you will see attempts to remix things which are impeded by poor
quality of the originals and/or a mixing engineer who doesn't understand the
philosophy of the originals. The Hair soundtrack is a fine example of this.
Unfortunately your choice is either to get the oddly-remixed and Aphexed CD,
or the LP that has been Dynagrooved, so you're pretty much out of luck for
sound quality with either option.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 1/30/2015 2:18 PM, JackA wrote:
> What I'm attempting to say is, certain terms are still used, but I
> feel the practices have stopped. Like, one person would "mix",
> another would "master", because it was too much work for any one
> person back in the good ol' days.

In the good ol' days, the recording engineer mixed, because he was
working with a complete musical package. The band played and sang all
the parts, or the producer brought in sidemen at the appropriate times
and they did their jobs. Mixing wasn't a process or arranging a song
from a bunch of pieces that were recorded when an idea came along or a
musician was available. You always heard the final sound develop
throughout the recording process, and mixing was a matter of balancing
parts if the were on separate parts and making sure that what was
recorded could be heard.

Then it was sent off to be mastered, which meant doing the least amount
of damage so that the cutter would make a good lacquer master and the
pressing process could proceed. Big studios like those owned by major
record companies usually had a mastering department, pressing plants
sometimes had a mastering department, and some independent mastering
studios emerged. The reason why mastering was a separate process from
recording/mixing wasn't necessarily because of different skills - those
developed as with experience - it was that the equipment and skill set
were completely different from those involved with recording. It wasn't
unusual for a mastering studio to be asked to adjust levels between
songs, maybe do a touch of EQ, but their most important job was to make
a playable cut.

In the early days of CD production, the job was similar in function, but
the tools were all different, as was the technology and techniques.
Studios didn't have the tools to make the digital master that went to
the cutter, so digital mastering was born. As more people were recording
in less adequate studios, the job to fix problems like too much or too
little bass in a recording coming from a studio with inaccurate
monitoring, or just inexperienced recording.

"Make it loud" came along later when the listener stopped listening to
complete albums and started making "mix tapes" that were direct
transfers from CDs, without going through an analog chain where the one
making the compilation had the opportunity, if he cared, to adjust the
volume of each song in the assembly. Originally "making it loud" was a
pretty heavy handed process, but in later years, the mastering engineer
became the one who would put the finishing touch on a good project or
make make decent chicken salad from chicken ****.

That's why recording, mixing, and mastering is what it is today.



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

[JackA]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 9:05:35 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >Okay, John, not criticizing, just wanted to better understand what happened=
> >. Many people I chat with use the "mastering" word as if BIG record compani=
> >es are still around. What I'm attempting to say is, certain terms are still=
> > used, but I feel the practices have stopped. Like, one person would "mix",=
> > another would "master", because it was too much work for any one person ba=
> >ck in the good ol' days.
>
> This is still the case. It is very rare for an engineer to do his own
> mastering work. The whole point of the mastering engineer is to provide a
> last check on sound quality and do have a second set of ears evaluate
> everything.
>
> Check the credits on the back of the CDs that you listen to.
>
> Now, it is less common for the recording engineer, or the producer, to
> attend the mastering session with the mastering engineer (cutting engineer).
> That's definitely a problem today, because the interplay between these people
> is important, and it is always interesting to get into the mastering suite
> and hear things that you never heard on the studio monitors (often because
> you didn't notice them until the mastering engineer pointed them out).
>
> > I always thought remastering should include remixi=
> > ng. Today, I feel most do it all. Steven Wilson, I guess, out your way, has=
> > done some nice remixing of past popular songs. Others, like Steve Hoffman,=
> > claim you should not mess with a precious sounding master. Yet, I have CDs=
> > with Steve Hoffman has remixed past hits.
>
> Why? If it sounds good, why touch it

Why touch it you ask? A valid question, too. People don't make master tapes just because they feel like it, they make them to USE. After some time, tapes wear (and age) and audio quality begins to degrade. Bottom line, hear me out, if YOU want the GREATEST dynamic range, you remix the song(s). Primitive man, in the past, only had noisy TAPE to mix-down to. These days, digtal remixing no longer requires a noisy tape to mix down to. Just that ALONE should be enough to desire remixing. BUT, I say, BUT what stops it? It's COST. Someone even mentioned Steven Wilson makes little money from remixing. This was also told to me by a Ron Furmanek, who's been involved in (past) CD music for a long time.

, especially when the people doing the
> remixing may have a totally different vision than the original crew?
>
> Often today you will see attempts to remix things which are impeded by poor
> quality of the originals and/or a mixing engineer who doesn't understand the
> philosophy of the originals. The Hair soundtrack is a fine example of this.
> Unfortunately your choice is either to get the oddly-remixed and Aphexed CD,
> or the LP that has been Dynagrooved, so you're pretty much out of luck for
> sound quality with either option.

Scott, I am not saying remixing can sound worse than the original mix. I say listen to the original mix, maintain that as much as possible, but add to it. That's why I would seek others for their input before publishing anything.
Also, Scott, take Thin Lizzy for example. It appears an "original" master tape was overdubbed for the siren sounds on their "Jailbreak" song. The siren sounds were nowhere to be found on the multi-tracks.

I enjoyed R.E.M.s, The One I Love, song. I remixed it and now I hear a tambourine (maybe acoustic guitar work, too) that I never heard before...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/the1ilove.mp3

Jack

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

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>Why touch it you ask? A valid question, too. People don't make master tapes=
> just because they feel like it, they make them to USE. After some time, ta=
>pes wear (and age) and audio quality begins to degrade. Bottom line, hear m=
>e out, if YOU want the GREATEST dynamic range, you remix the song(s). Primi=
>tive man, in the past, only had noisy TAPE to mix-down to. These days, digt=
>al remixing no longer requires a noisy tape to mix down to. Just that ALONE=
> should be enough to desire remixing. BUT, I say, BUT what stops it? It's C=
>OST. Someone even mentioned Steven Wilson makes little money from remixing.=
> This was also told to me by a Ron Furmanek, who's been involved in (past) =
>CD music for a long time.

You're trading degradation of the mixdown tape for degradation of the
master tapes. The Hair album is a perfect example of this, where it was
remixed from a master tape that was falling apart, when the mixdown tape
sounded pretty good.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
KMA, did you ever check-out Fleetwood Mac's Rumours album, I guess,
the CD Deluxe edition? I never found (song) Gold Dust Woman real interesting, but it is
sort of sad how they fouled the sound with echo and stuff, the pre-fouled version sounds
audiophile like!!! I guess, some people don't know when to quit.

Jack "


I own #3010-2, the 1984 US & Europe CD release. It's the ONLY one I will ever
own, LOL! I can hear the reverb, but very faintly, and in its proper proportions.


Just for kicks I loaded it into my DAW, limited 6dB off the peaks and applied very
light compression down around -40dB. I then gained it back up to -1dbfs peak,
and yes, I heard PLENTY of reverb, so much it distracted me from hearing the
other elements of the frickin track!


Jack, please realize that engineers do not just out of the blue decide they are
going to trash a perfectly good recording like that or an existing master.
Someone is contacting them to "remaster" existing works in this fashion,
and the engineers do what they will receive payment for. That someone may
be the original artist, their producer, or very likely, the record label.


THEY are the ones we need to let know that we DON'T want our music
****ED with, and that we will spread the word to others not to buy it
in this re-imagined fashion. Not the engineers in r.a.p., on Gearslutz,
or anywhere else.


Of course a few sticks in the mud on here, whose livelihoods depend on the
occasional client request to destroy their music, still think I'm blaming them,
but that's okay, they can't handle the truth!


Kinder regards,

-The KManrocks

[JackA]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 9:58:39 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >Why touch it you ask? A valid question, too. People don't make master tapes=
> > just because they feel like it, they make them to USE. After some time, ta=
> >pes wear (and age) and audio quality begins to degrade. Bottom line, hear m=
> >e out, if YOU want the GREATEST dynamic range, you remix the song(s). Primi=
> >tive man, in the past, only had noisy TAPE to mix-down to. These days, digt=
> >al remixing no longer requires a noisy tape to mix down to. Just that ALONE=
> > should be enough to desire remixing. BUT, I say, BUT what stops it? It's C=
> >OST. Someone even mentioned Steven Wilson makes little money from remixing.=
> > This was also told to me by a Ron Furmanek, who's been involved in (past) =
> >CD music for a long time.
>
> You're trading degradation of the mixdown tape for degradation of the
> master tapes. The Hair album is a perfect example of this, where it was
> remixed from a master tape that was falling apart, when the mixdown tape
> sounded pretty good.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

You are probably correct! My sister had that album, and in my adjacent bedroom heard it many times, w/o asking! :-)

Not often, can't be specific, but on CDs, because of OLD technology, I heard worn mixing (linear) potentiometers in action (noise). Another reason, where possible, would rather have it digitally mixed! Led Zeppelin, boy, what I heard, tells me Jimmy Page wasn't concerned with sound quality!! Have some "boots" also well as multi's from second album.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA: I also own a vinyl of Rumours, somewhere in my basement.
I should table it up and listen to it fer real! :)


As for Zeppelin, there is a thoroughly disgusting suggestion going
around that the original CD release of their catalog was transferred
from CASSETTES or even vinyl. I think I first read of it in the Led
Zeppelin 2014 remasters thread on the Steve Hoffman Forums.
Sound like something Fox News would spout, seriously.


Take a gander over there - I think you'll recognize my handle in
a heartbeat(it contains the word "... Remasters!")

[JackA]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 10:19:20 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
> KMA, did you ever check-out Fleetwood Mac's Rumours album, I guess,
> the CD Deluxe edition? I never found (song) Gold Dust Woman real interesting, but it is
> sort of sad how they fouled the sound with echo and stuff, the pre-fouled version sounds
> audiophile like!!! I guess, some people don't know when to quit.
>
> Jack "
>
>
> I own #3010-2, the 1984 US & Europe CD release. It's the ONLY one I will ever
> own, LOL! I can hear the reverb, but very faintly, and in its proper proportions.
>
>
> Just for kicks I loaded it into my DAW, limited 6dB off the peaks and applied very
> light compression down around -40dB. I then gained it back up to -1dbfs peak,
> and yes, I heard PLENTY of reverb, so much it distracted me from hearing the
> other elements of the frickin track!
>
>
> Jack, please realize that engineers do not just out of the blue decide they are
> going to trash a perfectly good recording like that or an existing master..
> Someone is contacting them to "remaster" existing works in this fashion,
> and the engineers do what they will receive payment for. That someone may
> be the original artist, their producer, or very likely, the record label.
>
>
> THEY are the ones we need to let know that we DON'T want our music
> ****ED with, and that we will spread the word to others not to buy it
> in this re-imagined fashion. Not the engineers in r.a.p., on Gearslutz,
> or anywhere else.
>
>
> Of course a few sticks in the mud on here, whose livelihoods depend on the
> occasional client request to destroy their music, still think I'm blaming them,
> but that's okay, they can't handle the truth!
>
>
> Kinder regards,
>
> -The KManrocks

KMan, do you, not from what you're often told, do you believe artists always approve of their mixes? Personally, I say, no, that is not true. They sign a contract and, I feel, that's where their control and input ends.

There's is LITTLE pride in audio work with past music. You seldom EVER find ANYONE defending their audio work on places like Amazon. If I did remastering and someone (or a few) was/were pleased with the mix or whatever, I'd get permission to send a special mix to that particular person.

Not to brag or anything like that, but because I digitally enhance songs I like on EARLY CDs, two times I was asked if I was a recording engineer. Even in (usenet) places where others would say I'm full of poop, think I was a troll, but would applaud particular audio enhancing (have some quotes on my web site).

I have attempted to contact MANY who are involved with remastering. Only twice out of MANY times, has anyone replied. They do hide well!! :-)

Jack

[hank alrich]

John Williamson > wrote:

> I did as I was requested to, and got paid the agreed sum. The client was
> happy, I was happy, and the listeners were presumably happy, as I heard
> no more about it.

Fancy that a troll is worried that you are not concerned with your
reputation. Fancy the last time someone paid their blls with a good
reputation instead of money. Fancy that the mastering and mixing and
recording engineers he disses have both good reputations and the ability
to pay their bills. Fancy the troll who thinks his opinion affects
another person's reputation.

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

[John Williamson]

On 30/01/2015 16:16, JackA wrote:

> There's is LITTLE pride in audio work with past music. You seldom EVER find ANYONE defending their audio work on places like Amazon. If I did remastering and someone (or a few) was/were pleased with the mix or whatever, I'd get permission to send a special mix to that particular person.
>
If they're pleased, why send them a special copy? They obviously like
what you've done, which is presumably the best you can, so you can't
improve on it.

> I have attempted to contact MANY who are involved with remastering. Only twice out of MANY times, has anyone replied. They do hide well!! :-)
>
Were you complaining or complimenting them when they ignored you? Your
posts here suggest you were just telling them they couldn't do the job.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 11:28:55 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 30/01/2015 16:16, JackA wrote:
>
> > There's is LITTLE pride in audio work with past music. You seldom EVER find ANYONE defending their audio work on places like Amazon. If I did remastering and someone (or a few) was/were pleased with the mix or whatever, I'd get permission to send a special mix to that particular person.
> >
> If they're pleased, why send them a special copy? They obviously like
> what you've done, which is presumably the best you can, so you can't
> improve on it.
>
> > I have attempted to contact MANY who are involved with remastering. Only twice out of MANY times, has anyone replied. They do hide well!! :-)
> >
> Were you complaining or complimenting them when they ignored you? Your
> posts here suggest you were just telling them they couldn't do the job.

Both complimenting and criticizing!! You remember the group, War? Have a special CD with, I guess, and outtake. Someone hired a dipwad Hip Hop person to turn it into crap. That's the kind of crap I find on audio CDs.

Why I sadly say, who the heck cares, "Made In The USA", we're the new China, who once turned out crap and junk, too!!

Jack

>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[John Williamson]

On 30/01/2015 16:39, JackA wrote:
> On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 11:28:55 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
>> Were you complaining or complimenting them when they ignored you? Your
>> posts here suggest you were just telling them they couldn't do the job.
>
> Both complimenting and criticizing!! You remember the group, War? Have a special CD with, I guess, and outtake. Someone hired a dipwad Hip Hop person to turn it into crap. That's the kind of crap I find on audio CDs.
>
I remember Eric Burdon, though mainly with the Animals, and not with
War, but then again, they were probably not marketed over here. As for
the extra (Outtake) track, I've seen and bought quite a few "special"
CDs from big chain shops with one or more tracks remixed as a "bonus
track", often by people who are well respected, but in a totally
different field. It's one way to make the CD seem to be better value.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:06:03 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 30/01/2015 16:39, JackA wrote:
> > On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 11:28:55 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> >> Were you complaining or complimenting them when they ignored you? Your
> >> posts here suggest you were just telling them they couldn't do the job..
> >
> > Both complimenting and criticizing!! You remember the group, War? Have a special CD with, I guess, and outtake. Someone hired a dipwad Hip Hop person to turn it into crap. That's the kind of crap I find on audio CDs.
> >
> I remember Eric Burdon, though mainly with the Animals, and not with
> War, but then again, they were probably not marketed over here. As for
> the extra (Outtake) track, I've seen and bought quite a few "special"
> CDs from big chain shops with one or more tracks remixed as a "bonus
> track", often by people who are well respected, but in a totally
> different field. It's one way to make the CD seem to be better value.

I was surprised to find some multi-tracks of "Spill The Wine", but a shorter version...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/spillwine-rm2.mp3

And, John, you're correct even w/o knowing it. I mean, to seek the best sound quality, you sometimes have to return to the country origin of recordings, not what was issued in the USA (all that's left is a spent tape copy), but recorded and mixed in the UK!!

I believe there is some limit to man's hearing in that it's tough to judge when sound quality improves. This is why I value how easily I can hear (comprehend) lyrics that I couldn't understand before!

Jack
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[hank alrich]

John Williamson > wrote:

> If they're pleased, why send them a special copy? They obviously like
> what you've done, which is presumably the best you can, so you can't
> improve on it.

The troll imagines professionals have time for that kind of egotistical
masturbastion, in the first place.

> Were you complaining or complimenting them when they ignored you? Your
> posts here suggest you were just telling them they couldn't do the job.

The troll imagines mastering professionals have time and are interested
in hearing from strangers who are seeking anything but a place in the
mastering schedule. The troll imagines that a professional mastering
engineer, mixing engineer, or tracking engineer would be interested in
the troll's opinion of their work.

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

[JackA]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 1:22:25 PM UTC-5, hank alrich wrote:
> John Williamson > wrote:
>
> > If they're pleased, why send them a special copy? They obviously like
> > what you've done, which is presumably the best you can, so you can't
> > improve on it.
>
> The troll imagines professionals have time for that kind of egotistical
> masturbastion, in the first place.
>
> > Were you complaining or complimenting them when they ignored you? Your
> > posts here suggest you were just telling them they couldn't do the job.
>
> The troll imagines mastering professionals have time and are interested
> in hearing from strangers who are seeking anything but a place in the
> mastering schedule. The troll imagines that a professional mastering
> engineer, mixing engineer, or tracking engineer would be interested in
> the troll's opinion of their work.
>
> --
> shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
> HankandShaidriMusic.Com
> YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

Hey, Hank, I met Lumpy....
http://digitalcartography.com/guitar_lessons.htm

... in usenet, bought three of his CDs, even autographed one. He was real nice. Decent guitarist. I guess some music artists are nice others are not!

Jack

[Luxey]

петак, 30. јануар 2015. 02.54.34 UTC+1, је напи�ао/ла:

> Yeah, top-40 stuff, like Fleetwood Mac, disco-era Bee Gees, America,
> George Benson, not much distortion in that list.

So, you're deaf, too. Good to know.

[[email protected]]

Luxey wrote: "So, you're deaf, too. Good to
know."

Заткни�ь, иди на хуй !

[Luxey]

�убота, 31. јануар 2015. 03.41.16 UTC+1, је напи�ао/ла:
> Luxey wrote: "So, you're deaf, too. Good to
> know."
>
> Заткни�ь, иди на хуй !

Thekma, you're an utter moron, I don't speak Russian, or whatever is the
language you used there. As usual, your presumptions are wrong, your prejudice
enormous.

Now although I don't speak it, I can decipher general meaning. So I can tell
you're also an vulgarian, patsy, heyseed, bounder, villain, chuff ...

Iwould also say you were yahoo, but as stupid as you are, an afraid you'd
missread it for google, or bing, or something.

[[email protected]]

Luxey wrote: "

Thekma, you're an utter moron, I don't speak Russian, or whatever is the
language you used there. As usual, your presumptions are wrong, your prejudice
enormous. "


First off, Slobodan, it's 'thekmanrocks".


Secondly, I am very prejudiced - against CLOSED MINDS, INTOLERANCE,
and a demonstrated reluctance to politely point out where YOU THINK
something I posted was incorrect or needed guidance.


All you've done is criticize, call me names, told me I'm "deaf"' etc etc etc.
You're no better than n0ne-Alrich in that regard.

[None]

< KrissiShortbusDumb**** i@ shortbus-dot-drool > wrote in message
...
> Luxey wrote: "
>
> Thekma, you're an utter moron, I don't speak Russian, or whatever is
> the
> language you used there. As usual, your presumptions are wrong, your
> prejudice
> enormous. "
>
>
> First off, Slobodan, it's 'thekmanrocks".

You're called Krissi "Shortbus" Dumb****i, dumb****. And you know why
you should go eat worms.

[Luxey]

�убота, 31. јануар 2015. 15.42.40 UTC+1, је напи�ао/ла:
>
> First off, Slobodan, it's 'thekmanrocks".
>

?!

As for the rest. I may be over the top from time to time, but I was provoked
by your recklessnes. How many times people from the group asked you to
stop polluting it. You told us what you had to. We acknowledged, even gave
you some more insight. And, what you do? You keep molesting us. You should
either stop, change the subject, or go away.
Civilized person with manners would do so.

You get tdrunk in the bar, start taping shoulders arround and talking
loud ... after a while owner, or employee will kindly ask you to leave.
Depending on your reaction, things will follow.
Fortunatelly, we don't have owners and employees here, administrators and
moderators, but you should yield to the rest of the visitors and grant
their plea.

[JackA]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 9:17:31 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 1/30/2015 2:18 PM, JackA wrote:
> > What I'm attempting to say is, certain terms are still used, but I
> > feel the practices have stopped. Like, one person would "mix",
> > another would "master", because it was too much work for any one
> > person back in the good ol' days.
>
> In the good ol' days, the recording engineer mixed, because he was
> working with a complete musical package. The band played and sang all
> the parts, or the producer brought in sidemen at the appropriate times
> and they did their jobs. Mixing wasn't a process or arranging a song
> from a bunch of pieces that were recorded when an idea came along or a
> musician was available. You always heard the final sound develop
> throughout the recording process, and mixing was a matter of balancing
> parts if the were on separate parts and making sure that what was
> recorded could be heard.
>
> Then it was sent off to be mastered, which meant doing the least amount
> of damage so that the cutter would make a good lacquer master and the
> pressing process could proceed. Big studios like those owned by major
> record companies usually had a mastering department, pressing plants
> sometimes had a mastering department, and some independent mastering
> studios emerged. The reason why mastering was a separate process from
> recording/mixing wasn't necessarily because of different skills - those
> developed as with experience - it was that the equipment and skill set
> were completely different from those involved with recording. It wasn't
> unusual for a mastering studio to be asked to adjust levels between
> songs, maybe do a touch of EQ, but their most important job was to make
> a playable cut.
>
> In the early days of CD production, the job was similar in function, but
> the tools were all different, as was the technology and techniques.
> Studios didn't have the tools to make the digital master that went to
> the cutter, so digital mastering was born. As more people were recording
> in less adequate studios, the job to fix problems like too much or too
> little bass in a recording coming from a studio with inaccurate
> monitoring, or just inexperienced recording.
>
> "Make it loud" came along later when the listener stopped listening to
> complete albums and started making "mix tapes" that were direct
> transfers from CDs, without going through an analog chain where the one
> making the compilation had the opportunity, if he cared, to adjust the
> volume of each song in the assembly. Originally "making it loud" was a
> pretty heavy handed process, but in later years, the mastering engineer
> became the one who would put the finishing touch on a good project or
> make make decent chicken salad from chicken ****.
>
> That's why recording, mixing, and mastering is what it is today.
>
>
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com


Mark, I appreciate the education!!

Yeah, at Capitol, when they went to master for CD (like, Sinatra), there were notes and settings to use this or that electronic audio gadget, but, sadly, that equipment was no longer was available!

I guess you're referring to Normalization to automatically average/maximize amplitude while "ripping" CDs.

Mark, you have any idea how the determined amplitudes for CD? I mean, many I have are far below the available envelope. Some CDs, maybe many, I'd find one song the stood out as being the loudest. I thought that particular song was used to gauge the maximum amplitude for the group.

Jack

[JackA]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 10:39:39 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA: I also own a vinyl of Rumours, somewhere in my basement.
> I should table it up and listen to it fer real! :)
>
>
> As for Zeppelin, there is a thoroughly disgusting suggestion going
> around that the original CD release of their catalog was transferred
> from CASSETTES or even vinyl. I think I first read of it in the Led
> Zeppelin 2014 remasters thread on the Steve Hoffman Forums.
> Sound like something Fox News would spout, seriously.
>
>
> Take a gander over there - I think you'll recognize my handle in
> a heartbeat(it contains the word "... Remasters!")

I FINALLY found the "original" stereo mix to (early '70s) One Fine Morning, by a Canadian group, Lighthouse, on CD. About a US Top 20 hit. Anyway, they had remixed the song, and it want from a hard driving horn song to silly putty. Really. I'll post samples of each when I get time. But it shows, if it's originally loud, making it softer sounding isn't welcome, it disturbs fans!

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/2/2015 11:34 PM, JackA wrote:
> I guess you're referring to Normalization to automatically
> average/maximize amplitude while "ripping" CDs.

Normalizing only looks for the maximum level within the section you're
normalizing (a song or a whole CD). It raises the level of the whole
section by the amount that it takes to get the highest peak up to 0 dBFS
(or a bit lower if your nomalizing program allows it). If there's one
drum hit or foot stomp that's 20 dB higher than any of the music peaks,
after normalization, the music will still be 20 dB below full scale.

> Mark, you have any idea how the determined amplitudes for CD? I mean,
> many I have are far below the available envelope. Some CDs, maybe
> many, I'd find one song the stood out as being the loudest. I thought
> that particular song was used to gauge the maximum amplitude for the
> group.

There's a loudness standard for broadcast now and it's a big deal. There
can be only a certain amount of loudness difference between the loudest
and softest portions (not counting fadeouts, of course) as measured by
the standard techniques. There are a number of programs that measure the
loudness according to the standard and tools to correct discrepancies.
TC Electronic just released a DAW plug-in that automatically does
loudness correction.

This doesn't really impact individual songs on a CD but it means that a
radio or TV station may need to adjust the level of songs that they
broadcast to meet the standard. See:

http://www.tcelectronic.com/loudness/broadcast-standards/

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

[JackA]

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 6:22:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/2/2015 11:34 PM, JackA wrote:
> > I guess you're referring to Normalization to automatically
> > average/maximize amplitude while "ripping" CDs.
>
> Normalizing only looks for the maximum level within the section you're
> normalizing (a song or a whole CD). It raises the level of the whole
> section by the amount that it takes to get the highest peak up to 0 dBFS
> (or a bit lower if your nomalizing program allows it). If there's one
> drum hit or foot stomp that's 20 dB higher than any of the music peaks,
> after normalization, the music will still be 20 dB below full scale.
>
> > Mark, you have any idea how the determined amplitudes for CD? I mean,
> > many I have are far below the available envelope. Some CDs, maybe
> > many, I'd find one song the stood out as being the loudest. I thought
> > that particular song was used to gauge the maximum amplitude for the
> > group.
>
> There's a loudness standard for broadcast now and it's a big deal. There
> can be only a certain amount of loudness difference between the loudest
> and softest portions (not counting fadeouts, of course) as measured by
> the standard techniques. There are a number of programs that measure the
> loudness according to the standard and tools to correct discrepancies.
> TC Electronic just released a DAW plug-in that automatically does
> loudness correction.
>
> This doesn't really impact individual songs on a CD but it means that a
> radio or TV station may need to adjust the level of songs that they
> broadcast to meet the standard. See:
>
> http://www.tcelectronic.com/loudness/broadcast-standards/
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Thanks, Mike. I think of Loudness in two ways, amplitude and density of sound. Why many music groups overdubbed to add density (fill in those weak spots). Some songs, when the songs ends you might hear a piano, but you'd never know it was part of the song.

I'm guessing RIAA and AES were of no value for early CD mastering - no real "standards". Probably not any today, too :)

Not sure you can answer this, but it has to do with DC Offset (drives me nuts). While some say it's caused by grounding, ground loops, etc., I'm just wondering if tape head biasing may be possibility, too. Not sure there's such a thing a no offset at all in music. It seems to vary with frequency, generally affecting the lower end (bass) of the audio spectrum.

Jack

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/3/2015 12:51 AM, JackA wrote:
> DC Offset (drives me nuts). While some say it's caused by grounding,
> ground loops, etc., I'm just wondering if tape head biasing may be
> possibility, too. Not sure there's such a thing a no offset at all in
> music. It seems to vary with frequency, generally affecting the lower
> end (bass) of the audio spectrum.

DC offset isn't caused by grounding, ground loops or tape bias. It's caused by DC offset in op amps in the audio chain and the use of DC coupling (eliminates those evil capacitors). Another cause is A/D converters that haven't been properly zeroed out.

There's plenty of music that's non-symmetrical so what looks like DC offset is really just the way sounds are.

The reason why you want to get rid of DC offset is that it takes up headroom. If you're offset by one bit that's one bit's worth of level that you can't use in one direction.


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

[geoff]

On 3/02/2015 11:34 a.m., JackA wrote:

>
> I guess you're referring to Normalization to automatically
> average/maximize amplitude while "ripping" CDs.
>
> Mark, you have any idea how the determined amplitudes for CD? I mean,
> many I have are far below the available envelope. Some CDs, maybe
> many, I'd find one song the stood out as being the loudest. I thought
> that particular song was used to gauge the maximum amplitude for the
> group.

Now there's a coincidence - somebody 'else' without a clue about
normalisation, loudness, levels, etc ! Rings a bell ....


geoff

[geoff]

On 3/02/2015 12:51 p.m., JackA wrote:

>
> Not sure you can answer this, but it has to do with DC Offset (drives
> me nuts). While some say it's caused by grounding, ground loops,
> etc., I'm just wondering if tape head biasing may be possibility,
> too. Not sure there's such a thing a no offset at all in music. It
> seems to vary with frequency, generally affecting the lower end
> (bass) of the audio spectrum.

Where there's a new angle !

geoff

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "If you're offset by one bit that's one bit's worth of level
that you can't use in one direction. "

1 bit = 6dB =.....

A LOT of offset!

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers > writes:

>On 2/3/2015 12:51 AM, JackA wrote:
>> DC Offset (drives me nuts). While some say it's caused by grounding,
>> ground loops, etc., I'm just wondering if tape head biasing may be
>> possibility, too. Not sure there's such a thing a no offset at all in
>> music. It seems to vary with frequency, generally affecting the lower
>> end (bass) of the audio spectrum.

>DC offset isn't caused by grounding, ground loops or tape bias. It's caused by DC
>offset in op amps in the audio chain and the use of DC coupling (eliminates those
>evil capacitors). Another cause is A/D converters that haven't been properly zeroed
>out.

>There's plenty of music that's non-symmetrical so what looks like DC offset is
>really just the way sounds are.

Indeed. The OP should take a look at brass for textbook examples of asymmetry.

>The reason why you want to get rid of DC offset is that it takes up headroom. If
>you're offset by one bit that's one bit's worth of level that you can't use in one
>direction.

Quite true. And, with modern electronics in a digital environment, we've extended
the LF range to nearly DC. There's a fair amount of noise sub-20 Hz that doesn't
serve much purpose.

A mix trick I do is to apply steep high-pass to every channel (24 dB/octave at 20 hz
or maybe 30 hz, depending on program material) -- kinda emulates what used to happen
in the olden days with transformers and tape. Cleans things up a bit.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Mike Rivers wrote: "If you're offset by one bit that's one bit's worth of level
>that you can't use in one direction. "
>
>1 bit = 6dB =.....
>
>A LOT of offset!

Nahh... Even in the 16 bit world you have 96 dB to deal with. Just enormous
amounts of dynamic range. More than anyone could have dreamed of in the
days of 15 ips tape.

Not that you should waste it, mind you, but it doesn't sound like the original
poster is talking about DC offset anyway.
--scott

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

[Luxey]

OP's thinking goes ...

Hm, I've heard about this DC offset, it shifts signal to one side of zero line,
DC ... isn't it electric current, wait, what was that other thing I've heard about electric current, oh yes, it hums, oh I got it, the hum makes DC offset,
everything goes to one side, that must be why The Beatles drums are all on one
side, but George Martin had enough money to record another rum track and shift
it to another side for balance, must be there was another drummer too, wait, two
sides ..., that's stereo ..., how come George Martin could not figure it out with all the money he got ..., mmmm, something's fishy there, I have to spread the word Ringo was offset by DC ...

[JackA]

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 9:53:25 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/3/2015 12:51 AM, JackA wrote:
> > DC Offset (drives me nuts). While some say it's caused by grounding,
> > ground loops, etc., I'm just wondering if tape head biasing may be
> > possibility, too. Not sure there's such a thing a no offset at all in
> > music. It seems to vary with frequency, generally affecting the lower
> > end (bass) of the audio spectrum.
>
> DC offset isn't caused by grounding, ground loops or tape bias. It's caused by DC offset in op amps in the audio chain and the use of DC coupling (eliminates those evil capacitors). Another cause is A/D converters that haven't been properly zeroed out.
>
> There's plenty of music that's non-symmetrical so what looks like DC offset is really just the way sounds are.
>
> The reason why you want to get rid of DC offset is that it takes up headroom. If you're offset by one bit that's one bit's worth of level that you can't use in one direction.
>
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Most "rips" from vinyl have a lot of DC offset. At least in a digital world, you can't achieve zero offset, the best you can do is average it. You might think you have removed it, but take a selection of the song and check it and there will be some offset. Also, once you think you have zero offset, you save to MP3, open that and now there's offset. Personally, I don't feel it's a big deal (though it drives me nuts), because others don't really seem to care about it.

I guess, the best thing to do, before mixing, is check each track for offset, fix it then, because if "mixed", as-is, some of it can't be later removed.

Thanks for your input!

Jack

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 8:17:00 AM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
> Mike Rivers > writes:
>
> >On 2/3/2015 12:51 AM, JackA wrote:
> >> DC Offset (drives me nuts). While some say it's caused by grounding,
> >> ground loops, etc., I'm just wondering if tape head biasing may be
> >> possibility, too. Not sure there's such a thing a no offset at all in
> >> music. It seems to vary with frequency, generally affecting the lower
> >> end (bass) of the audio spectrum.
>
> >DC offset isn't caused by grounding, ground loops or tape bias. It's caused by DC
> >offset in op amps in the audio chain and the use of DC coupling (eliminates those
> >evil capacitors). Another cause is A/D converters that haven't been properly zeroed
> >out.
>
> >There's plenty of music that's non-symmetrical so what looks like DC offset is
> >really just the way sounds are.
>
> Indeed. The OP should take a look at brass for textbook examples of asymmetry.
>
> >The reason why you want to get rid of DC offset is that it takes up headroom. If
> >you're offset by one bit that's one bit's worth of level that you can't use in one
> >direction.
>
> Quite true. And, with modern electronics in a digital environment, we've extended
> the LF range to nearly DC. There's a fair amount of noise sub-20 Hz that doesn't
> serve much purpose.
>
> A mix trick I do is to apply steep high-pass to every channel (24 dB/octave at 20 hz
> or maybe 30 hz, depending on program material) -- kinda emulates what used to happen
> in the olden days with transformers and tape. Cleans things up a bit.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>
> --
> .

As some songs fade, that is when I begin to see offset greatly grow. I look at what frequencies, and as you suggest apply a steep filter, trim those frequencies below, but it really doesn't change much. But I am in agreement, do whatever fixing you have to do before mixing.

Thanks.

Jack

[geoff]

On 4/02/2015 2:16 a.m., Frank Stearns wrote:

>
> A mix trick I do is to apply steep high-pass to every channel (24 dB/octave at 20 hz
> or maybe 30 hz, depending on program material) -- kinda emulates what used to happen
> in the olden days with transformers and tape. Cleans things up a bit.

I routinely do a more gentle roll-off starting below the lowest wanted
frequency on the particular track.

Yes, cleans up a lot. Especially room stuff.

geoff

[geoff]

On 4/02/2015 3:59 a.m., Luxey wrote:
> OP's thinking goes ...
>
> Hm, I've heard about this DC offset, it shifts signal to one side of zero line,
> DC ... isn't it electric current, wait, what was that other thing I've heard about electric current, oh yes, it hums, oh I got it, the hum makes DC offset,
> everything goes to one side, that must be why The Beatles drums are all on one
> side, but George Martin had enough money to record another rum track and shift
> it to another side for balance, must be there was another drummer too, wait, two
> sides ..., that's stereo ..., how come George Martin could not figure it out with all the money he got ..., mmmm, something's fishy there, I have to spread the word Ringo was offset by DC ...
>


Methinks the OP has a hobby-horse of DC-offset , whereas his buddy' has
one on hyper-compression. The thing in common is that they 'both' appear
to have litle understanding of their hobby horse.

geoff

[geoff]

On 4/02/2015 6:36 a.m., JackA wrote:

>
> Most "rips" from vinyl have a lot of DC offset.

And apart from a broken and direct-coupled phono-EQ and/or A-D, how
would you explain that ?

Or are you suggesting that anything asymmetrical is because of a DC offset ?

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/3/2015 6:50 PM, JackA wrote:
> As some songs fade, that is when I begin to see offset greatly grow.
> I look at what frequencies, and as you suggest apply a steep filter,
> trim those frequencies below, but it really doesn't change much.

DC offset doesn't 'grow' as a song fades out, and it doesn't have
frequencies since it's DC. Whatever it is that you're describing, it
isn't DC offset.

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

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>Most "rips" from vinyl have a lot of DC offset. At least in a digital world=
>, you can't achieve zero offset, the best you can do is average it. You mig=
>ht think you have removed it, but take a selection of the song and check it=
> and there will be some offset. Also, once you think you have zero offset, =
>you save to MP3, open that and now there's offset. Personally, I don't feel=
> it's a big deal (though it drives me nuts), because others don't really se=
>em to care about it.

Where do you think this offset is coming from?

>I guess, the best thing to do, before mixing, is check each track for offse=
>t, fix it then, because if "mixed", as-is, some of it can't be later remove=
>d.

If you're seeing appreciable offset, your converters are broken and should
be sent to a good tech.

DC offset is not something that just magically appears. You don't add sines
and suddenly have a constant appearing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 3:02:40 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 4/02/2015 3:59 a.m., Luxey wrote:
> > OP's thinking goes ...
> >
> > Hm, I've heard about this DC offset, it shifts signal to one side of zero line,
> > DC ... isn't it electric current, wait, what was that other thing I've heard about electric current, oh yes, it hums, oh I got it, the hum makes DC offset,
> > everything goes to one side, that must be why The Beatles drums are all on one
> > side, but George Martin had enough money to record another rum track and shift
> > it to another side for balance, must be there was another drummer too, wait, two
> > sides ..., that's stereo ..., how come George Martin could not figure it out with all the money he got ..., mmmm, something's fishy there, I have to spread the word Ringo was offset by DC ...
> >
>
>
> Methinks the OP has a hobby-horse of DC-offset , whereas his buddy' has
> one on hyper-compression. The thing in common is that they 'both' appear
> to have litle understanding of their hobby horse.
>
> geoff

Yeah!!! Wikipedia: "This can cause two main problems. Either the loudest parts of the signal will be clipped prematurely, since the base of the waveform has been moved up, or inaudible low-frequency distortion will occur. Low-frequency distortion may not be audible in the initial recording, but if the waveform is resampled to a compressed or lossy digital format, such as an MP3, those corruptions may become audible".

Many can't understand that SOME songs when MP3 encoded at a low bit rate, like 96 kbps (I have encoded many), still sound good, but other songs sound bad!! The above just supports my theory.

Jack

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 3:42:24 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/3/2015 6:50 PM, JackA wrote:
> > As some songs fade, that is when I begin to see offset greatly grow.
> > I look at what frequencies, and as you suggest apply a steep filter,
> > trim those frequencies below, but it really doesn't change much.
>
> DC offset doesn't 'grow' as a song fades out, and it doesn't have
> frequencies since it's DC. Whatever it is that you're describing, it
> isn't DC offset.

It is, Mike! With lack of any (or less) AC component, the DC offset grows. This is why I said, you can never achieve zero offset, because in the digital world, it's just averaged. I guess people don't watch, they just use their ears. Me, I carefully watch what's happening!!

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

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 4:32:41 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >Most "rips" from vinyl have a lot of DC offset. At least in a digital world=
> >, you can't achieve zero offset, the best you can do is average it. You mig=
> >ht think you have removed it, but take a selection of the song and check it=
> > and there will be some offset. Also, once you think you have zero offset, =
> >you save to MP3, open that and now there's offset. Personally, I don't feel=
> > it's a big deal (though it drives me nuts), because others don't really se=
> >em to care about it.
>
> Where do you think this offset is coming from?

Grounding, biasing (grids) of vacuum tubes are two things I can think of.

>
> >I guess, the best thing to do, before mixing, is check each track for offse=
> >t, fix it then, because if "mixed", as-is, some of it can't be later remove=
> >d.
>
> If you're seeing appreciable offset, your converters are broken and should
> be sent to a good tech.

What is appreciable? One of the worst looking waveforms was from a bootleg CD of Led Zeppelin. While I could "fix" it some, it was impossible to make the waveform "look" correct!

Jack

>
> DC offset is not something that just magically appears. You don't add sines
> and suddenly have a constant appearing.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 4:32:41 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> JackA > wrote:
>> >Most "rips" from vinyl have a lot of DC offset. At least in a digital world=
>> >, you can't achieve zero offset, the best you can do is average it. You mig=
>> >ht think you have removed it, but take a selection of the song and check it=
>> > and there will be some offset. Also, once you think you have zero offset, =
>> >you save to MP3, open that and now there's offset. Personally, I don't feel=
>> > it's a big deal (though it drives me nuts), because others don't really se=
>> >em to care about it.
>>
>> Where do you think this offset is coming from?
>
>Grounding, biasing (grids) of vacuum tubes are two things I can think of.

How do you propose grounding to cause DC bias?

How does a misbiased tube in a capacitively-coupled amplifier cause DC
bias on the output?

Do you have any idea what you are talking about or are you just stringing
together some sort of word salad because you think it sounds good?

>> >I guess, the best thing to do, before mixing, is check each track for offse=
>> >t, fix it then, because if "mixed", as-is, some of it can't be later remove=
>> >d.
>>
>> If you're seeing appreciable offset, your converters are broken and should
>> be sent to a good tech.
>
>What is appreciable? One of the worst looking waveforms was from a bootleg CD of Led Zeppelin. While I could "fix" it some, it was impossible to make the waveform "look" correct!

Umm..... DC offset doesn't change the way the waveform looks, really.

CDs will very seldom have DC offset on them... and when they do, you can
tell by the loud popping noise at the beginning and end of each track.

I don't know where you get these bizarre ideas from. Give us some more!
Have you been on a UFO flight with Elvis?
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/3/2015 11:31 PM, JackA wrote:

>> it isn't DC offset.

> It is, Mike! With lack of any (or less) AC component, the DC offset
> grows. This is why I said, you can never achieve zero offset, because
> in the digital world, it's just averaged. I guess people don't watch,
> they just use their ears. Me, I carefully watch what's happening!!

Could you post a video of what you're looking at? It's probably not
useful to post the file since what you're seeing may be unique to your
playback system.

An easy way to test it is to record some silence (turn the input gain
all the way down and to be sure, put a shorting plug in the input that
you're recording) and play it back. If the playback is not at zero
level, then fix your DC offset problem.


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

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 6:07:07 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/3/2015 11:31 PM, JackA wrote:
>
> >> it isn't DC offset.
>
> > It is, Mike! With lack of any (or less) AC component, the DC offset
> > grows. This is why I said, you can never achieve zero offset, because
> > in the digital world, it's just averaged. I guess people don't watch,
> > they just use their ears. Me, I carefully watch what's happening!!
>
> Could you post a video of what you're looking at? It's probably not
> useful to post the file since what you're seeing may be unique to your
> playback system.

Sure, but as I said, any MP3 I posted here has SOME DC offset. Correct it, then cut the song in half, discard half of it or any part. Check the DC offset again and I guarantee it will surface again and again.

>
> An easy way to test it is to record some silence (turn the input gain
> all the way down and to be sure, put a shorting plug in the input that
> you're recording) and play it back. If the playback is not at zero
> level, then fix your DC offset problem.

I'm not personally recording anything, Mike. This is from songs on CD or from multi-tracks. The last time I checked, it is still an unknown what harm DC offset can bring. I look at MANY professional recording engineers preaching and never once have I heard DC offset mentioned.

Jack

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

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
Methinks the OP has a hobby-horse of DC-offset , whereas his buddy' has
one on hyper-compression. The thing in common is that they 'both' appear
to have litle understanding of their hobby horse.

geoff "


State, in no fewer than FIVE HUNDRED WORDS, what the F- I "don't
understand" about compression.

I don't care who else you talk about here in the third-person, but when
it's about me, you'd better be prepared to BACK UP WHAT YOU
SAID.

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
> Methinks the OP has a hobby-horse of DC-offset , whereas his buddy'
> has
> one on hyper-compression. The thing in common is that they 'both'
> appear
> to have litle understanding of their hobby horse.
>
> geoff "
>
>
> State, in no fewer than FIVE HUNDRED WORDS, what the F- I "don't
> understand" about compression.
>
> I don't care who else you talk about here in the third-person, but
> when
> it's about me, you'd better be prepared to BACK UP WHAT YOU
> SAID.

Look out for the dumb ****! It's ranting with caps-lock!

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 6:41:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
> Methinks the OP has a hobby-horse of DC-offset , whereas his buddy' has
> one on hyper-compression. The thing in common is that they 'both' appear
> to have litle understanding of their hobby horse.
>
> geoff "
>
>
> State, in no fewer than FIVE HUNDRED WORDS, what the F- I "don't
> understand" about compression.
>
> I don't care who else you talk about here in the third-person, but when
> it's about me, you'd better be prepared to BACK UP WHAT YOU
> SAID.

Yeah, K, they make fun of others here. But then I take their audio "work" and gain a nice compliment...

"I don't know, but I have to agree, some of these sound GREAT compared to the released versions".

DC Offset that, Scotty and Geoff!!

The old motto, don't let boys handle a man's job.

Jack

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 6:51:53 PM UTC-5, None wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
> > Methinks the OP has a hobby-horse of DC-offset , whereas his buddy'
> > has
> > one on hyper-compression. The thing in common is that they 'both'
> > appear
> > to have litle understanding of their hobby horse.
> >
> > geoff "
> >
> >
> > State, in no fewer than FIVE HUNDRED WORDS, what the F- I "don't
> > understand" about compression.
> >
> > I don't care who else you talk about here in the third-person, but
> > when
> > it's about me, you'd better be prepared to BACK UP WHAT YOU
> > SAID.
>
> Look out for the dumb ****! It's ranting with caps-lock!

I'm guessing this is one of the rec.audio.pro's mascots, a pit-bull with no teeth or claws. I might think it's Hank, but he's just missing the teeth.

Anyway, not to brag or nothing, but another guard-dog in another Usenet group would make fun of me, calling me names, and childish maneuvers/behavior. But when I managed to get him to write, "Mr. Coin wrote: "Even though you're a dumb-ass that is great work; it clears everything up without changing the original mix".

TWICE, from strangers, I was asked if I'm a recording engineer (from my digital audio work). Care to know who? Bob Charger (WOGL-FM, Philly) and Jim Liddane (ISA, Ireland). Two nice people I met via internet and/or e-mail.

I enjoy competition, but I compete against myself. Audio work is just a hobby for now; it just fascinates me, really. But, as I said, even if you THINK you're top dog with audio, don't expect a lot of applause, because not many are into HQ sound.

And, p.s., if you view the Wrecking Crew documentary/film, I submitted the Frank/Nancy Sintara studio talk, free of charge. Not sure it was included.

Jack

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 5:56:03 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 4:32:41 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >> JackA > wrote:
> >> >Most "rips" from vinyl have a lot of DC offset. At least in a digital world=
> >> >, you can't achieve zero offset, the best you can do is average it. You mig=
> >> >ht think you have removed it, but take a selection of the song and check it=
> >> > and there will be some offset. Also, once you think you have zero offset, =
> >> >you save to MP3, open that and now there's offset. Personally, I don't feel=
> >> > it's a big deal (though it drives me nuts), because others don't really se=
> >> >em to care about it.
> >>
> >> Where do you think this offset is coming from?
> >
> >Grounding, biasing (grids) of vacuum tubes are two things I can think of.
>
> How do you propose grounding to cause DC bias?
>
> How does a misbiased tube in a capacitively-coupled amplifier cause DC
> bias on the output?
>
> Do you have any idea what you are talking about or are you just stringing
> together some sort of word salad because you think it sounds good?
>
> >> >I guess, the best thing to do, before mixing, is check each track for offse=
> >> >t, fix it then, because if "mixed", as-is, some of it can't be later remove=
> >> >d.
> >>
> >> If you're seeing appreciable offset, your converters are broken and should
> >> be sent to a good tech.
> >
> >What is appreciable? One of the worst looking waveforms was from a bootleg CD of Led Zeppelin. While I could "fix" it some, it was impossible to make the waveform "look" correct!
>
> Umm..... DC offset doesn't change the way the waveform looks, really.
>
> CDs will very seldom have DC offset on them... and when they do, you can
> tell by the loud popping noise at the beginning and end of each track.
>
> I don't know where you get these bizarre ideas from. Give us some more!
> Have you been on a UFO flight with Elvis?
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I'm willing to bet this is the first time DC offset was discussed here. As I wrote, people don't pay attention to it, so why would they be concerned?

I have yet to hear any "popping" noise caused by DC offset.

I'll just chalk you up as an amateur, since you're big in usenet but nothing outside of it.

Thank you.

Jack

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 6:07:07 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/3/2015 11:31 PM, JackA wrote:
>
> >> it isn't DC offset.
>
> > It is, Mike! With lack of any (or less) AC component, the DC offset
> > grows. This is why I said, you can never achieve zero offset, because
> > in the digital world, it's just averaged. I guess people don't watch,
> > they just use their ears. Me, I carefully watch what's happening!!
>
> Could you post a video of what you're looking at? It's probably not
> useful to post the file since what you're seeing may be unique to your
> playback system.
>
> An easy way to test it is to record some silence (turn the input gain
> all the way down and to be sure, put a shorting plug in the input that
> you're recording) and play it back. If the playback is not at zero
> level, then fix your DC offset problem.
>
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

(Footnote) Mike, since I plan to post some material (video) to YouTube, I have downloaded some video desktop capture software. Just give me some time. I'll post it in a new thread for you and others to review. And I'll show how it's nearly impossible to achieve zero offset.

Jack

[None]

"JackAss" > wrote in message
...
> I'm willing to bet this is the first time DC offset was discussed
> here.

That would be a stupid bet (no surprise). You'd lose that bet. It's
been discussed, and by people who actually understand what it is. You
don't.

As I wrote, people don't pay attention to it, so why would they be
concerned?

> I have yet to hear any "popping" noise caused by DC offset.

How could you tell? You don't even know what DC offset is.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 8:00:39 PM UTC-5, None wrote:
> "JackAss" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm willing to bet this is the first time DC offset was discussed
> > here.
>
> That would be a stupid bet (no surprise). You'd lose that bet. It's
> been discussed, and by people who actually understand what it is. You
> don't.
>
> As I wrote, people don't pay attention to it, so why would they be
> concerned?
>
> > I have yet to hear any "popping" noise caused by DC offset.
>
> How could you tell? You don't even know what DC offset is.

I'm not sure what causes it in all cases, but this idiot does know how to spell "troll".
Slow down, look at what you write.

Jack

[None]

"JackA" > wrote in message
...
>> How could you tell? You don't even know what DC offset is.
>
> I'm not sure what causes it in all cases,

You've already proven that you don't even know what it is. You like to
use terms that you don't understand. It may make you appear smart in
some circles, but if you try to bull**** the regulars of this
newsgroup, you're only proving that you're an idiot. Maybe that's the
point you're trying to make; if so, you're successful.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/4/2015 1:46 AM, JackA wrote:
> I'm willing to bet this is the first time DC offset was discussed
> here. As I wrote, people don't pay attention to it, so why would they
> be concerned?

Well, because it's a non-issue with properly working equipment.

> I have yet to hear any "popping" noise caused by DC offset.

Then you don't have DC offset, you have another problem, or a good
imagination.


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

[[email protected]]

We need to let this fade itself out
Lets try and start a more worthwhile thread.

Mark

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 8:34:05 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/4/2015 1:46 AM, JackA wrote:
> > I'm willing to bet this is the first time DC offset was discussed
> > here. As I wrote, people don't pay attention to it, so why would they
> > be concerned?
>
> Well, because it's a non-issue with properly working equipment.
>
> > I have yet to hear any "popping" noise caused by DC offset.
>
> Then you don't have DC offset, you have another problem, or a good
> imagination.

Then go argue with Chris, author of Goldwave (software) and tell him his offset theory is full of poop. I asked the same question there, in that forum.

Scott mentions "appreciable". My question, what is "appreciable" DC offset? Any clear-cut answer?

Jack

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

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 8:35:11 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> We need to let this fade itself out
> Lets try and start a more worthwhile thread.
>
> Mark

No, Mark, until I get some definite answers, other than I haven't a clue what I'm talking about, let this thread roll.

Thank you.

Jack

[None]

"JackAss" > wrote in message
...
> Then go argue with Chris, author of Goldwave (software) and tell him
> his offset theory is full of poop.

When a kook knows he's got nothing, he tells you to go argue with
someone else.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 8:58:17 PM UTC-5, None wrote:
> "JackAss" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Then go argue with Chris, author of Goldwave (software) and tell him
> > his offset theory is full of poop.
>
> When a kook knows he's got nothing, he tells you to go argue with
> someone else.

Yeah, like I told them to go argue with Google, since they have inadequate software to wrap lines of text.

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>
>I'm willing to bet this is the first time DC offset was discussed here. As I wrote, people don't pay attention to it, so why would they be concerned?

No, back in the eighties, DC offset was a big issue because converters were
much cruder than they are today.

>I have yet to hear any "popping" noise caused by DC offset.

This would imply that you have never experienced DC offset.

>I'll just chalk you up as an amateur, since you're big in usenet but nothing outside of it.

Feel free to chalk me up however you like, but please answer my questions
about what you believe DC offset is.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 8:34:05 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 2/4/2015 1:46 AM, JackA wrote:
>> > I'm willing to bet this is the first time DC offset was discussed
>> > here. As I wrote, people don't pay attention to it, so why would they
>> > be concerned?
>>
>> Well, because it's a non-issue with properly working equipment.
>>
>> > I have yet to hear any "popping" noise caused by DC offset.
>>
>> Then you don't have DC offset, you have another problem, or a good
>> imagination.
>
>Then go argue with Chris, author of Goldwave (software) and tell him his offset theory is full of poop. I asked the same question there, in that forum.

What question did you ask? I don't recall any questions from you, just
your spouting off about DC offset.

>Scott mentions "appreciable". My question, what is "appreciable" DC offset? Any clear-cut answer?

More than maybe 4xLSB would start to make me think about it being an issue.
It's hard to measure much lower than that on a typical cut of a few minutes
by low-passing it, so anything less than that would not be worrisome.

It probably needs to get to be 60 or 70 dB from FS to cause a noticeable pop
between tracks unless you're listening very carefully.
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 9:27:42 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >
> >I'm willing to bet this is the first time DC offset was discussed here. As I wrote, people don't pay attention to it, so why would they be concerned?
>
> No, back in the eighties, DC offset was a big issue because converters were
> much cruder than they are today.
>
> >I have yet to hear any "popping" noise caused by DC offset.
>
> This would imply that you have never experienced DC offset.
>
> >I'll just chalk you up as an amateur, since you're big in usenet but nothing outside of it.
>
> Feel free to chalk me up however you like, but please answer my questions
> about what you believe DC offset is.

That's why I made this sketch some years ago...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/dcoffset.gif

You don't impress me as knowing a whole heck of a lot, Scott, but I appreciate your input.

Jack


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

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "But, as I said, even if you THINK you're top dog with audio, don't expect a lot
of applause, because not many are into HQ sound. "


Actually, most of the engineers are into high quality sound here. But their biggest clients,
the RECORD LABELS and ARTISTS, aren't into quality sound - they're interested only in
SELLING LOTS OF RECORDS. HYPERCOMPRESSED, LOUD, BAND-WIDTH-LIMITED
CDs and digital downloads! Understand what's driving this quest for sound quality to
the bottom of the barrel, worse than even wax cylinder, JackA, and you'll understand
what I had to learn.

[geoff]

On 4/02/2015 4:30 p.m., wrote:
> JackA wrote: "But, as I said, even if you THINK you're top dog with audio, don't expect a lot
> of applause, because not many are into HQ sound. "
>
>
> Actually, most of the engineers are into high quality sound here. But their biggest clients,
> the RECORD LABELS and ARTISTS, aren't into quality sound - they're interested only in
> SELLING LOTS OF RECORDS. HYPERCOMPRESSED, LOUD, BAND-WIDTH-LIMITED

OK , so now we are band-width limited as well ? Presumably that means
more limited than sometime prior ? Please explain.

geoff

[geoff]

On 4/02/2015 12:52 p.m., JackA wrote:

>
> "I don't know, but I have to agree, some of these sound GREAT
> compared to the released versions".
>
> DC Offset that, Scotty and Geoff!!
>
> The old motto, don't let boys handle a man's job.
>
> Jack
>


Is that meant to me that Scott, myself, and a bunch of other people here
don't understand what is DC-offset, and what isn't DC-offset ? And you
do ?!!!


geoff

[hank alrich]

geoff > wrote:

> OK , so now we are band-width limited as well ? Presumably that means
> more limited than sometime prior ? Please explain.

I always limit the width of my band's members. It's right there in the
job specifications. Otherwise, it just gets too crowded on the bus.

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 18:39:14 -0800 (PST), JackA >
wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 9:27:42 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> JackA > wrote:
>> >
>> >I'm willing to bet this is the first time DC offset was discussed here. As I wrote, people don't pay attention to it, so why would they be concerned?
>>
>> No, back in the eighties, DC offset was a big issue because converters were
>> much cruder than they are today.
>>
>> >I have yet to hear any "popping" noise caused by DC offset.
>>
>> This would imply that you have never experienced DC offset.
>>
>> >I'll just chalk you up as an amateur, since you're big in usenet but nothing outside of it.
>>
>> Feel free to chalk me up however you like, but please answer my questions
>> about what you believe DC offset is.
>
>That's why I made this sketch some years ago...
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/dcoffset.gif
>
>You don't impress me as knowing a whole heck of a lot, Scott, but I appreciate your input.
>
>Jack


Jack, have a look at this audio waveform and tell me whether it has a
DC offset. Present your reasoning.

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/dc_offset.png

d

[geoff]

On 4/02/2015 5:32 p.m., hank alrich wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>
>> OK , so now we are band-width limited as well ? Presumably that means
>> more limited than sometime prior ? Please explain.
>
> I always limit the width of my band's members. It's right there in the
> job specifications. Otherwise, it just gets too crowded on the bus.
>


So exactly how wide are your band's members ? Or is diameter a better
measurement ?


geoff

[geoff]

On 4/02/2015 6:14 p.m., Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 18:39:14 -0800 (PST), JackA >
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 9:27:42 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> JackA > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm willing to bet this is the first time DC offset was discussed here. As I wrote, people don't pay attention to it, so why would they be concerned?
>>>
>>> No, back in the eighties, DC offset was a big issue because converters were
>>> much cruder than they are today.
>>>
>>>> I have yet to hear any "popping" noise caused by DC offset.
>>>
>>> This would imply that you have never experienced DC offset.
>>>
>>>> I'll just chalk you up as an amateur, since you're big in usenet but nothing outside of it.
>>>
>>> Feel free to chalk me up however you like, but please answer my questions
>>> about what you believe DC offset is.
>>
>> That's why I made this sketch some years ago...
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/dcoffset.gif
>>
>> You don't impress me as knowing a whole heck of a lot, Scott, but I appreciate your input.
>>
>> Jack
>
>
> Jack, have a look at this audio waveform and tell me whether it has a
> DC offset. Present your reasoning.
>
> http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/dc_offset.png
>
> d
>


I suspect he thinks an average centre-line anywhere but "0" means a DC
offset.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 04/02/2015 06:43, geoff wrote:
> On 4/02/2015 6:14 p.m., Don Pearce wrote:
>> Jack, have a look at this audio waveform and tell me whether it has a
>> DC offset. Present your reasoning.
>>
>> http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/dc_offset.png
>>
>
> I suspect he thinks an average centre-line anywhere but "0" means a DC
> offset.
>
That depends entirely on the way you calculate the average and the
waveform. I take it that any DC offset is calculated using the areas
within the positive and negative waveforms, which is one way of
calculating the average voltage. If you only look at the peaks, that's
wrong and misleading.

It's also waveform dependent? As in brass instruments and voices have
bigger positive pressure peaks than negative, so in one way, they have a
built in DC offset.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 4/02/2015 10:06 p.m., John Williamson wrote:
> On 04/02/2015 06:43, geoff wrote:
>> On 4/02/2015 6:14 p.m., Don Pearce wrote:
>>> Jack, have a look at this audio waveform and tell me whether it has a
>>> DC offset. Present your reasoning.
>>>
>>> http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/dc_offset.png
>>>
>>
>> I suspect he thinks an average centre-line anywhere but "0" means a DC
>> offset.
>>
> That depends entirely on the way you calculate the average and the
> waveform. I take it that any DC offset is calculated using the areas
> within the positive and negative waveforms, which is one way of
> calculating the average voltage. If you only look at the peaks, that's
> wrong and misleading.
>
> It's also waveform dependent? As in brass instruments and voices have
> bigger positive pressure peaks than negative, so in one way, they have a
> built in DC offset.
>
>


That's not a DC offset. That's an asymmetry which gives an effect on a
waveform similar to that of a DC offset. To replay anything other than
that would be a playback error.

JackS appears to think all waveform *must* be symetrical.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson > wrote:
>>
>That depends entirely on the way you calculate the average and the
>waveform. I take it that any DC offset is calculated using the areas
>within the positive and negative waveforms, which is one way of
>calculating the average voltage. If you only look at the peaks, that's
>wrong and misleading.
>
>It's also waveform dependent? As in brass instruments and voices have
>bigger positive pressure peaks than negative, so in one way, they have a
>built in DC offset.

No, that's the thing. The shape of the waveform does not affect DC
offset. The average of the sample is _not_ necessarily DC at all.
You can play a trumpet or a flute and the waveforms look different, but
the level in the silent part between the notes is zero on both.

That's the level in the silent part that is your indication of DC
offset. The only way to be sure without seeing it is by high-passing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>
>That's not a DC offset. That's an asymmetry which gives an effect on a
>waveform similar to that of a DC offset. To replay anything other than
>that would be a playback error.
>
>JackS appears to think all waveform *must* be symetrical.

Aha, so we have one troll that thinks compression is the source of all evil
and another one who believes compresion is necessary on all waveforms?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Rasta Robert]

On 2015-02-04, JackA > wrote:
>
> Yeah, like I told them to go argue with Google, since
> they have inadequate software to wrap lines of text.
>
> Jack

What's so difficult about using your <enter> key
every 70-72 characters?

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 7:31:43 AM UTC-5, Rasta Robert wrote:
> On 2015-02-04, JackA > wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, like I told them to go argue with Google, since
> > they have inadequate software to wrap lines of text.
> >
> > Jack
>
> What's so difficult about using your <enter> key
> every 70-72 characters?

Why not 80? Worked for IBM Punch Cards.

Anyway, most of the "regulars" here claim I post nonsense, so what's the big deal if they can't read what I write?

Jack

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 12:14:18 AM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 18:39:14 -0800 (PST), JackA >
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 9:27:42 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >> JackA > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I'm willing to bet this is the first time DC offset was discussed here. As I wrote, people don't pay attention to it, so why would they be concerned?
> >>
> >> No, back in the eighties, DC offset was a big issue because converters were
> >> much cruder than they are today.
> >>
> >> >I have yet to hear any "popping" noise caused by DC offset.
> >>
> >> This would imply that you have never experienced DC offset.
> >>
> >> >I'll just chalk you up as an amateur, since you're big in usenet but nothing outside of it.
> >>
> >> Feel free to chalk me up however you like, but please answer my questions
> >> about what you believe DC offset is.
> >
> >That's why I made this sketch some years ago...
> >
> >http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/dcoffset.gif
> >
> >You don't impress me as knowing a whole heck of a lot, Scott, but I appreciate your input.
> >
> >Jack
>
>
> Jack, have a look at this audio waveform and tell me whether it has a
> DC offset. Present your reasoning.
>
> http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/dc_offset.png
>
> d

Only if you tell me how this waveform was created...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/allofmylove.mp3

It, not the waveform, tells me Jimmy Page would overdub to any hiss noise filled recording!! THAT, is amazing, since this is from the '70's, not the '50's!

Welcome to "Pop" music.

Jack

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 4:07:00 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 04/02/2015 06:43, geoff wrote:
> > On 4/02/2015 6:14 p.m., Don Pearce wrote:
> >> Jack, have a look at this audio waveform and tell me whether it has a
> >> DC offset. Present your reasoning.
> >>
> >> http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/dc_offset.png
> >>
> >
> > I suspect he thinks an average centre-line anywhere but "0" means a DC
> > offset.
> >
> That depends entirely on the way you calculate the average and the
> waveform. I take it that any DC offset is calculated using the areas
> within the positive and negative waveforms, which is one way of
> calculating the average voltage. If you only look at the peaks, that's
> wrong and misleading.
>
> It's also waveform dependent? As in brass instruments and voices have
> bigger positive pressure peaks than negative, so in one way, they have a
> built in DC offset.

So, are "we" agreeing that there is no such thing a zero DC offset?

Thanks.

Jack
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 7:31:43 AM UTC-5, Rasta Robert wrote:
>> On 2015-02-04, JackA > wrote:
>> >
>> > Yeah, like I told them to go argue with Google, since
>> > they have inadequate software to wrap lines of text.
>> >
>> > Jack
>>
>> What's so difficult about using your <enter> key
>> every 70-72 characters?
>
>Why not 80? Worked for IBM Punch Cards.

Because someone will reply to your message and add a > at the beginning, and
by stopping at column 72 you have enough space to include eight replies on
an 80 column display.

>Anyway, most of the "regulars" here claim I post nonsense, so what's the big deal if they can't read what I write?

There is a point to that, yes.
--scott


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

[david gourley[_2_]]

JackA > said...news:90c1a6a3-00e5-4ae4-ba6f-
:

> On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 7:31:43 AM UTC-5, Rasta Robert wrote:
>> On 2015-02-04, JackA > wrote:
>> >
>> > Yeah, like I told them to go argue with Google, since
>> > they have inadequate software to wrap lines of text.
>> >
>> > Jack
>>
>> What's so difficult about using your <enter> key
>> every 70-72 characters?
>
> Why not 80? Worked for IBM Punch Cards.
>
> Anyway, most of the "regulars" here claim I post nonsense, so what's the
big deal if they can't read what I write?
>
> Jack

Exactly. As a troll you just don't need (nor have to care about) accuracy
with much of anything.

david

[John Williamson]

On 04/02/2015 13:52, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 4:07:00 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 04/02/2015 06:43, geoff wrote:
>>> On 4/02/2015 6:14 p.m., Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> Jack, have a look at this audio waveform and tell me whether it has a
>>>> DC offset. Present your reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/dc_offset.png
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suspect he thinks an average centre-line anywhere but "0" means a DC
>>> offset.
>>>
>> That depends entirely on the way you calculate the average and the
>> waveform. I take it that any DC offset is calculated using the areas
>> within the positive and negative waveforms, which is one way of
>> calculating the average voltage. If you only look at the peaks, that's
>> wrong and misleading.
>>
>> It's also waveform dependent? As in brass instruments and voices have
>> bigger positive pressure peaks than negative, so in one way, they have a
>> built in DC offset.
>
> So, are "we" agreeing that there is no such thing a zero DC offset?

Nope.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "Aha, so we have one troll that thinks compression is the source of all evil
and another one who believes compresion is necessary on all waveforms? "
https://marshallandmagnes.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/flush.jpg !!


WRONG, Limey! Overuse of compression/limiting combined with make-up
gain in post, as a VOLUME CONTROL is the source of evil. Adding
compression to a master tape of a '70s legend, chopping off 4-8dB of
the peaks, then regaining what's left up to -.00001 full scale and selling
it as "Definitively Remastered" is the source of all evil!


I use modest amounts of compression, along with carved out EQ, to keep
the vocals of my church worship team steady and cutting through the
instruments, NOT to tick off all the neighbors.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 2/4/2015 1:40 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 4/02/2015 5:32 p.m., hank alrich wrote:
>> geoff > wrote:
>>
>>> OK , so now we are band-width limited as well ? Presumably that means
>>> more limited than sometime prior ? Please explain.
>>
>> I always limit the width of my band's members. It's right there in the
>> job specifications. Otherwise, it just gets too crowded on the bus.
>>
>
>
> So exactly how wide are your band's members ? Or is diameter a better
> measurement ?
>
>
> geoff

....then if the diameter is too large would you be diametrically opposed?

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 9:02:02 AM UTC-5, david gourley wrote:
> JackA > said...news:90c1a6a3-00e5-4ae4-ba6f-
> :
>
> > On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 7:31:43 AM UTC-5, Rasta Robert wrote:
> >> On 2015-02-04, JackA > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, like I told them to go argue with Google, since
> >> > they have inadequate software to wrap lines of text.
> >> >
> >> > Jack
> >>
> >> What's so difficult about using your <enter> key
> >> every 70-72 characters?
> >
> > Why not 80? Worked for IBM Punch Cards.
> >
> > Anyway, most of the "regulars" here claim I post nonsense, so what's the
> big deal if they can't read what I write?
> >
> > Jack
>
> Exactly. As a troll you just don't need (nor have to care about) accuracy
> with much of anything.

But I'm impressed, after, what, FIVE years, someone is still trying to fix a tape deck. Great "technical" help here!

Jack
>
> david

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 9:00:03 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 7:31:43 AM UTC-5, Rasta Robert wrote:
> >> On 2015-02-04, JackA > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, like I told them to go argue with Google, since
> >> > they have inadequate software to wrap lines of text.
> >> >
> >> > Jack
> >>
> >> What's so difficult about using your <enter> key
> >> every 70-72 characters?
> >
> >Why not 80? Worked for IBM Punch Cards.
>
> Because someone will reply to your message and add a > at the beginning, and
> by stopping at column 72 you have enough space to include eight replies on
> an 80 column display.

I had NO PROBLEM reading Google posts (via Netscape and a NSP, Easynews), nor did I EVER read anyone complaining, but maybe these new gadgets YOU people use doesn't handle text well.

>
> >Anyway, most of the "regulars" here claim I post nonsense, so what's the big deal if they can't read what I write?
>
> There is a point to that, yes.

You must admit, I keep you busy; you're supposed to be TOP DOG here.

Jack

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"John Williamson" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> On 04/02/2015 13:52, JackA wrote:

>> So, are "we" agreeing that there is no such thing a zero DC offset?

> Nope.

The non-subtle difference between asymmetry, usually caused by the presence
of second harmonics, and offset seems to elude some people.

> John

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Frank Stearns]

JackA > writes:

snips

>That's why I made this sketch some years ago...

>http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/dcoffset.gif

What is this scrawl supposed to show?

Again, I suggest you go look at brass waveforms, and even a surprising number of
voices (particularly trained voices). Some of the asymmetries are rather remarkable,
particularly that of the trumpet. If you tried to "fix" that, it wouldn't sound like
much of a trumpet.


>You don't impress me as knowing a whole heck of a lot, Scott, but I appreciate your
>input.

Are you 12, 13, perhaps 14? That's generally the time of one's life when due to very
limited horizons your universe seems large (and therefore your self-assumed
knowledge base gives the /illusion/ of being extensive), but in fact your education
is just barely beginning (if you'll even let it occur).

Assuming normal development, 10-15 years later you're just astounded at how much
smarter everyone has gotten.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> Aha, so we have one troll that thinks compression is the source of all evil
> and another one who believes compresion is necessary on all waveforms?
> --scott

And that's the basis of my preference for stereo trolling with Ford
Fenders. They scale well.

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 05:47:20 -0800 (PST), JackA >
wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 12:14:18 AM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 18:39:14 -0800 (PST), JackA >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 9:27:42 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> >> JackA > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm willing to bet this is the first time DC offset was discussed here. As I wrote, people don't pay attention to it, so why would they be concerned?
>> >>
>> >> No, back in the eighties, DC offset was a big issue because converters were
>> >> much cruder than they are today.
>> >>
>> >> >I have yet to hear any "popping" noise caused by DC offset.
>> >>
>> >> This would imply that you have never experienced DC offset.
>> >>
>> >> >I'll just chalk you up as an amateur, since you're big in usenet but nothing outside of it.
>> >>
>> >> Feel free to chalk me up however you like, but please answer my questions
>> >> about what you believe DC offset is.
>> >
>> >That's why I made this sketch some years ago...
>> >
>> >http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/dcoffset.gif
>> >
>> >You don't impress me as knowing a whole heck of a lot, Scott, but I appreciate your input.
>> >
>> >Jack
>>
>>
>> Jack, have a look at this audio waveform and tell me whether it has a
>> DC offset. Present your reasoning.
>>
>> http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/dc_offset.png
>>
>> d
>
>Only if you tell me how this waveform was created...
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/allofmylove.mp3
>
> It, not the waveform, tells me Jimmy Page would overdub to any hiss noise filled recording!! THAT, is amazing, since this is from the '70's, not the '50's!
>
>Welcome to "Pop" music.
>
Who cares how that was created; it has no DC offset. Now back to my
simple waveform.Using your skill and judgment, tell me if you think it
has a DC offset.

d

[hank alrich]

Frank Stearns > wrote:

> Assuming normal development, 10-15 years later you're just astounded at
> how much smarter everyone has gotten.

Big assumption.

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

[Tim Sprout]

On 2/3/2015 4:16 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> Mike Rivers > writes:
>
>> On 2/3/2015 12:51 AM, JackA wrote:
>>> DC Offset (drives me nuts). While some say it's caused by grounding,
>>> ground loops, etc., I'm just wondering if tape head biasing may be
>>> possibility, too. Not sure there's such a thing a no offset at all in
>>> music. It seems to vary with frequency, generally affecting the lower
>>> end (bass) of the audio spectrum.
>
>> DC offset isn't caused by grounding, ground loops or tape bias. It's caused by DC
>> offset in op amps in the audio chain and the use of DC coupling (eliminates those
>> evil capacitors). Another cause is A/D converters that haven't been properly zeroed
>> out.
>
>> There's plenty of music that's non-symmetrical so what looks like DC offset is
>> really just the way sounds are.
>
> Indeed. The OP should take a look at brass for textbook examples of asymmetry.
>
>> The reason why you want to get rid of DC offset is that it takes up headroom. If
>> you're offset by one bit that's one bit's worth of level that you can't use in one
>> direction.
>
> Quite true. And, with modern electronics in a digital environment, we've extended
> the LF range to nearly DC. There's a fair amount of noise sub-20 Hz that doesn't
> serve much purpose.
>
> A mix trick I do is to apply steep high-pass to every channel (24 dB/octave at 20 hz
> or maybe 30 hz, depending on program material) -- kinda emulates what used to happen
> in the olden days with transformers and tape. Cleans things up a bit.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio

Interesting...I just tried this on a 25 channel mix (combination of XY
room mics, close mics, and triggered drum samples) and compared before
and after mixdown tracks using the ABX Comparator component in
foobar2000. The bass guitar was more prominent and had more definition
after applying the high-pass. Is it a good idea then to also low-pass
all channels at, say 20kHz?

Tim Sprout

[hank alrich]

Tim Sprout > wrote:

> On 2/3/2015 4:16 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> > Mike Rivers > writes:
> >
> >> On 2/3/2015 12:51 AM, JackA wrote:
> >>> DC Offset (drives me nuts). While some say it's caused by grounding,
> >>> ground loops, etc., I'm just wondering if tape head biasing may be
> >>> possibility, too. Not sure there's such a thing a no offset at all in
> >>> music. It seems to vary with frequency, generally affecting the lower
> >>> end (bass) of the audio spectrum.
> >
> >> DC offset isn't caused by grounding, ground loops or tape bias. It's
> >> caused by DC offset in op amps in the audio chain and the use of DC
> >> coupling (eliminates those evil capacitors). Another cause is A/D
> >> converters that haven't been properly zeroed out.
> >
> >> There's plenty of music that's non-symmetrical so what looks like DC
> >> offset is really just the way sounds are.
> >
> > Indeed. The OP should take a look at brass for textbook examples of
> >asymmetry.
> >
> >> The reason why you want to get rid of DC offset is that it takes up
> >> headroom. If you're offset by one bit that's one bit's worth of level
> >> that you can't use in one direction.
> >
> > Quite true. And, with modern electronics in a digital environment, we've
> > extended the LF range to nearly DC. There's a fair amount of noise
> > sub-20 Hz that doesn't serve much purpose.
> >
> > A mix trick I do is to apply steep high-pass to every channel (24
> > dB/octave at 20 hz or maybe 30 hz, depending on program material) --
> > kinda emulates what used to happen in the olden days with transformers
> > and tape. Cleans things up a bit.
> >
> > Frank
> > Mobile Audio
>
> Interesting...I just tried this on a 25 channel mix (combination of XY
> room mics, close mics, and triggered drum samples) and compared before
> and after mixdown tracks using the ABX Comparator component in
> foobar2000. The bass guitar was more prominent and had more definition
> after applying the high-pass. Is it a good idea then to also low-pass
> all channels at, say 20kHz?

Yes, no, maybe, and not necessarily. Energy up there is generally of
little consequence in terms of power. If there is a lot of high
frequency noise, as can be the case when copying from some analog
sources, or with some live recordings, then judicious use of low pass
filtering can be beneficial, choosing the knee, slope, and amount of
reduction by listening.

Don't pick an arbitrary setting unless the destination is known. For
example, the API 550A has a swtich that invokes 50 Hz to 15 kHz bandpass
for use with material aimed at FM radio. When mixing radio spots in the
1970's I'd use that filter, sending only what would be game for the
broadcast chain.

In the case of that bass guitar in your example, let's not assume the
same result if applying the same cut to other material. If the low end
capture is a bit muddy, a little indistinct in the low frequencies,
rolling those back can improve clarity. However, if everything on the
bottom is well played and well tracked, that same roll-off might affect
the sound adversely, removing the power and fullness of the low end.

Generally, there is no useful information in the 5 to 20 Hz region. It's
usually all energy sapping noise.

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Tim Sprout" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> On 2/3/2015 4:16 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:

>> A mix trick I do is to apply steep high-pass to every channel ..

> Interesting...I just tried this on a 25 channel mix (combination of XY
> room mics, close mics, and triggered drum samples) and compared before and
> after mixdown tracks using the ABX Comparator component in foobar2000. The
> bass guitar was more prominent and had more definition after applying the
> high-pass. Is it a good idea then to also low-pass all channels at, say
> 20kHz?

Both of you, do try Nugens "Mono" VST. It does wonders in terms of getting
rid of out of phase VLF, such as the big city noise floor inside a building.

Passing through it is ever so slightly audible, just as any other DSP
action, a wee lil' loss of clarity, but with sensible settings the quality
cost is very modest compared to the quality gain. I almost always use it as
a sum module plug in if non-coincidental and/or multiple microphones are
used and/or if LF issues are known to exist and using it in Audition3's sum
module gets all one in one processing.

> Tim Sprout

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Frank Stearns]

Tim Sprout > writes:

>On 2/3/2015 4:16 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>> Mike Rivers > writes:

snips

>> Quite true. And, with modern electronics in a digital environment, we've extended
>> the LF range to nearly DC. There's a fair amount of noise sub-20 Hz that doesn't
>> serve much purpose.
>>
>> A mix trick I do is to apply steep high-pass to every channel (24 dB/octave at 20 hz
>> or maybe 30 hz, depending on program material) -- kinda emulates what used to happen
>> in the olden days with transformers and tape. Cleans things up a bit.
>>

>Interesting...I just tried this on a 25 channel mix (combination of XY
>room mics, close mics, and triggered drum samples) and compared before
>and after mixdown tracks using the ABX Comparator component in
>foobar2000. The bass guitar was more prominent and had more definition
>after applying the high-pass. Is it a good idea then to also low-pass
>all channels at, say 20kHz?

I'd be much less inclined to do that for a host of reasons, but mainly because there
are already steep filters in place for the A-D/D-A processes. I don't want a knee
that might start intruding around 17-18K. (And we haven't even touched on HF phase
issues.)

But in the low end, especially stuff that a woofer might attempt to reproduce
between, say, 10 and 20 Hz (which perhaps mostly introduces only IM distortion),
yes, by all means dump it. Many different elements are now sitting a little prettier
once the LF noise is gone..

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Richard Kuschel]

DC Offset- Here is a waveform with a lot of it from convertors circa 1988.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/yoda8945/

[geoff]

On 5/02/2015 8:07 a.m., Tim Sprout wrote:

>
> Interesting...I just tried this on a 25 channel mix (combination of XY
> room mics, close mics, and triggered drum samples) and compared before
> and after mixdown tracks using the ABX Comparator component in
> foobar2000. The bass guitar was more prominent and had more definition
> after applying the high-pass. Is it a good idea then to also low-pass
> all channels at, say 20kHz?
>
> Tim Sprout
>


Naaa. High-pass it at 20 kHz and that cleans everything up very nicely !


geoff

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 12:16:33 PM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 05:47:20 -0800 (PST), JackA >
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 12:14:18 AM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
> >> On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 18:39:14 -0800 (PST), JackA >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 9:27:42 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >> >> JackA > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I'm willing to bet this is the first time DC offset was discussed here. As I wrote, people don't pay attention to it, so why would they be concerned?
> >> >>
> >> >> No, back in the eighties, DC offset was a big issue because converters were
> >> >> much cruder than they are today.
> >> >>
> >> >> >I have yet to hear any "popping" noise caused by DC offset.
> >> >>
> >> >> This would imply that you have never experienced DC offset.
> >> >>
> >> >> >I'll just chalk you up as an amateur, since you're big in usenet but nothing outside of it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Feel free to chalk me up however you like, but please answer my questions
> >> >> about what you believe DC offset is.
> >> >
> >> >That's why I made this sketch some years ago...
> >> >
> >> >http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/dcoffset.gif
> >> >
> >> >You don't impress me as knowing a whole heck of a lot, Scott, but I appreciate your input.
> >> >
> >> >Jack
> >>
> >>
> >> Jack, have a look at this audio waveform and tell me whether it has a
> >> DC offset. Present your reasoning.
> >>
> >> http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/dc_offset.png
> >>
> >> d
> >
> >Only if you tell me how this waveform was created...
> >
> >http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/allofmylove.mp3
> >
> > It, not the waveform, tells me Jimmy Page would overdub to any hiss noise filled recording!! THAT, is amazing, since this is from the '70's, not the '50's!
> >
> >Welcome to "Pop" music.
> >
> Who cares how that was created; it has no DC offset. Now back to my
> simple waveform.Using your skill and judgment, tell me if you think it
> has a DC offset.

I haven't a clue. But I see you're an Adobe Audition user. Allow me to share a story.

I used to enjoy hanging-out in a usenet Adobe Photoshop group. One day a female was yelling for help. She needed an animation made from two photographs. Sadly, the Adobe users, while scratching their heads, hadn't a clue how to accomplish that task. I stepped in and asked how quickly she needed it. She replied, yesterday! I jumped right on it and sent her a proof, she said it was "perfect". Not that I ever asked for money, she offered $50!! I used GIMP software [free], if you heard of that!...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/shutterwork.gif

Frank Stearns would be amazed how us kids can kick behinds!!

Jack :)


>
> d

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 3:09:49 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 5/02/2015 8:07 a.m., Tim Sprout wrote:
>
> >
> > Interesting...I just tried this on a 25 channel mix (combination of XY
> > room mics, close mics, and triggered drum samples) and compared before
> > and after mixdown tracks using the ABX Comparator component in
> > foobar2000. The bass guitar was more prominent and had more definition
> > after applying the high-pass. Is it a good idea then to also low-pass
> > all channels at, say 20kHz?
> >
> > Tim Sprout
> >
>
>
> Naaa. High-pass it at ---> 20 kHz

Who says you can't teach an old horse new tricks!!!

Your move, Scotty!

Jack


> geoff

[geoff]

On 5/02/2015 3:36 a.m., wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote: "Aha, so we have one troll that thinks compression is the source of all evil
> and another one who believes compresion is necessary on all waveforms? "
> https://marshallandmagnes.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/flush.jpg !!
>
>
> WRONG, Limey! Overuse of compression/limiting combined with make-up
> gain in post, as a VOLUME CONTROL is the source of evil. Adding
> compression to a master tape of a '70s legend, chopping off 4-8dB of
> the peaks, then regaining what's left up to -.00001 full scale and selling
> it as "Definitively Remastered" is the source of all evil!
>
>
> I use modest amounts of compression, along with carved out EQ, to keep
> the vocals of my church worship team steady and cutting through the
> instruments, NOT to tick off all the neighbors.
>


"Church worship team". Ahaa, finally click.

That explains the religious fervour re hyper-compression and DC-offset,
and also explains the implicit and unquestioning belief in 'facts' that
are in reality 'somewhat flawed', and lack of willingness to attempt
understanding of reasoned rational explanations.


geoff

[geoff]

On 5/02/2015 2:47 a.m., JackA wrote:

>
> Only if you tell me how this waveform was created...
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/allofmylove.mp3
>
> It, not the waveform, tells me Jimmy Page would overdub to any hiss noise filled recording!! THAT, is amazing, since this is from the '70's, not the '50's!
>
> Welcome to "Pop" music.

A broken compressor or limiter that is working asymmetrically. No DC
offset, certainly not in the MP3 at least. You can see that in the
'silent' bits.

Must check the RELEASED version to see if they put it out broken.


geoff

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 2:42:47 PM UTC-5, Richard Kuschel wrote:
> DC Offset- Here is a waveform with a lot of it from convertors circa 1988.
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/yoda8945/

Not that I have many, but I have yet to see something that nasty on early (legit) CDs. You SURE it was the convertor's fault? Don't think man would even attempt to go digital looking at that!

Thanks.

Jack

[Tim Sprout]

On 2/4/2015 10:26 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
> "Tim Sprout" > skrev i en meddelelse
> ...
>
>> On 2/3/2015 4:16 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>
>>> A mix trick I do is to apply steep high-pass to every channel ..
>
>> Interesting...I just tried this on a 25 channel mix (combination of XY
>> room mics, close mics, and triggered drum samples) and compared before and
>> after mixdown tracks using the ABX Comparator component in foobar2000. The
>> bass guitar was more prominent and had more definition after applying the
>> high-pass. Is it a good idea then to also low-pass all channels at, say
>> 20kHz?
>
> Both of you, do try Nugens "Mono" VST. It does wonders in terms of getting
> rid of out of phase VLF, such as the big city noise floor inside a building.
>
> Passing through it is ever so slightly audible, just as any other DSP
> action, a wee lil' loss of clarity, but with sensible settings the quality
> cost is very modest compared to the quality gain. I almost always use it as
> a sum module plug in if non-coincidental and/or multiple microphones are
> used and/or if LF issues are known to exist and using it in Audition3's sum
> module gets all one in one processing.
>
>> Tim Sprout
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Thanks, Peter. I am unclear how to use monofilter. Do you apply
monofilter to the master bus in multi-track, or apply it to the final
stereo track after mixdown?

Tim Sprout

[Luxey]

Probably not so sofisticated, but GStereo VST and GMonoBass VST, freeware by
Graham Yeadon are worth trying.

Also in regard to that MS talk in another thread, mda Image, also freeware.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Tim Sprout" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> On 2/4/2015 10:26 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:

>> Both of you, do try Nugens "Mono" VST. It does wonders in terms of
>> getting
>> rid of out of phase VLF, such as the big city noise floor inside a
>> building.

> Thanks, Peter. I am unclear how to use monofilter. Do you apply monofilter
> to the master bus in multi-track, or apply it to the final stereo track
> after mixdown?

You send the stereo signal through it whereever you can, I use it as a
summing module insert to keep the number of virtual DSP operations down, I
think it was Bob Ludwig who once stressed the major importance of that
strategy and he is right, every dsp operation cloudifies. Its presets I see
as demonstrations of what it can do, I use it in a gentler manner.

Here's an approximate strategy, I'm not gonna post exactly what I do but I
will describe it, it is not going to make the reader able to compete with me
in terms of quality, I still have a major lead in actual experience.

Tool is suitable microphones, mixer, recorder, computer with Audition 3 and
for mixing: KEF loudspeakers

Assume a classical live-remote with 2 to 8 tracks. (I can deploy more but it
hasn't been relevant and now that I am officially a retiree and has sold my
car I do not deploy very much, it will be interesting to see whether that
changes.)

Some people believe a spot-miked classical setup can be a CYA strategy, I
don't. It is not in my opion possible to put the main pair where an "only a
main pair" should be and get it to work well when combined with spotmikes.
Commit, set them mikes for the recording you intend, mean what you do.

If you have a piano with spot mike or spot mikes behind a trio, then put the
main pair up for the trio and try to suppress the piano in it. Corner the
market, do not allow competition and get the cleanest sound and then you can
have the trio-sound up front and clear without spotmiking them and having
them get harsh.

With singing wimmen take time if possible to explain to them that yes, you
would preferably be 6 feet from them with the mic, but this is about good
collegial spirit from their side, if you are that far away then you destroy
the ensemble sound with their mic and the ensemble should also have a fair
opportunity. Try to get a mic permit only 3 feet away from them and beware
of hand held scores.

Get your levels right before the concert and sit on your fingers. IF you
didn' get them right, then make a fairly fast gain change and note the
recorder time so that you can invert it in post of that track prior to
mixing.

The concert worked well with a static gain on all sound sources, so should
your mix do, and it if can not so do, then you somehow goofeed. Some spot
microphones should be have a compressor in the mix, but you could also hire
Andrea Pellegrini to do the singing.

On the channel module I almost always deploy two parametric eq presets in
series, "soft highpass at 40 Hz" and "whatever mic standard eq". Get the
temporal offset right, just as the ensemble follows the guy right under your
main pair the spot mics do, they should be "haas window late", never early
lest you should get double imaging. Expect to be able to get away with
panning them closer to the center than they are, do NOT expect EVER to be
able to pan anything across the mid line.

Sit on your fingers once you get the mix right, there IS one that works,
some of the time 1.4 to 2.8 compression on spot mikes will work for you,
some of the time against you, do not doit if it is not helpful but spotmikes
WILL get the crest factor wrong and it is reasonable to fix it correctly,
whatever that is, for realism.

You should similarly expect to have to add suitable verb, whatever that is
to some spotmikes, on one occasion it was a blatantly unnatural
plate-emulation that sounded just right and as part of the church, so do not
be religious about your choices.
´
On the master module I also, almost always, deploy the "soft highpass at 40
Hz" parametric preset, probably more like 30 Hz in its effect, then the mono
VST in a gentle setting, mostly "doing things" below 60 Hz and then perhaps
a suitable multiband compressor (Audition3 comes with a very configurable
Izotope) designed for the occasion and after that perhaps a "gradual
saturation compressor" and a hard limiter.

So the bassmanagemenet is 3-fold: channel module, master module,
mono-plugin, on one of my spot mikes I will deploy the mike highpass, but
mostly I don't care, not doing it is easier and there is less to forget.
Always manage bass before dynamic processing.

Tim: feel free to email me to get a suggested setup of the Mono VST Tim.

If you are a troll: If you don't see the point of dynamics processing in
classical music, just look Pernille Sejlund up. She is a composer and her
actively used dynamic range begins at the noise floor of the room. Don't
bother asking, I only see your posts if quoted by someone ...

> Tim Sprout

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

Peter Larsen wrote: "If you are a troll: If you don't see the point of
dynamics processing in classical music, just look Pernille Sejlund
up. She is a composer and her actively used dynamic range begins
at the noise floor of the room. Don't bother asking, I only see your
posts if quoted by someone ... "


Peter:


As I recently explained to Scott, I am NOT against prudent use
of compression DURING the production process.


I am, however, opposed to compression/brick wall limiting, in
conjunction with make-up gain, as a VOLUME CONTROL in
modern mixes and most excuses-for-remasters, that suck all
the life out of those recordings.


And sadly, such practices are creeping into the mastering of
so-called audiphile genres, such as jazz and the aforementioned
classical. But you don't have to take my word for it.

[Frank Stearns]

"Peter Larsen" > writes:

>"Tim Sprout" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

>> On 2/4/2015 10:26 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:

>>> Both of you, do try Nugens "Mono" VST. It does wonders in terms of
>>> getting
>>> rid of out of phase VLF, such as the big city noise floor inside a
>>> building.

>> Thanks, Peter. I am unclear how to use monofilter. Do you apply monofilter
>> to the master bus in multi-track, or apply it to the final stereo track
>> after mixdown?

>You send the stereo signal through it whereever you can, I use it as a
>summing module insert to keep the number of virtual DSP operations down, I
>think it was Bob Ludwig who once stressed the major importance of that
>strategy and he is right, every dsp operation cloudifies. Its presets I see
>as demonstrations of what it can do, I use it in a gentler manner.

>Here's an approximate strategy, I'm not gonna post exactly what I do but I
>will describe it, it is not going to make the reader able to compete with me
>in terms of quality, I still have a major lead in actual experience.

>Tool is suitable microphones, mixer, recorder, computer with Audition 3 and
>for mixing: KEF loudspeakers

>Assume a classical live-remote with 2 to 8 tracks. (I can deploy more but it
>hasn't been relevant and now that I am officially a retiree and has sold my
>car I do not deploy very much, it will be interesting to see whether that
>changes.)

>Some people believe a spot-miked classical setup can be a CYA strategy, I
>don't. It is not in my opion possible to put the main pair where an "only a
>main pair" should be and get it to work well when combined with spotmikes.
>Commit, set them mikes for the recording you intend, mean what you do.

>If you have a piano with spot mike or spot mikes behind a trio, then put the
>main pair up for the trio and try to suppress the piano in it. Corner the
>market, do not allow competition and get the cleanest sound and then you can
>have the trio-sound up front and clear without spotmiking them and having
>them get harsh.

>With singing wimmen take time if possible to explain to them that yes, you
>would preferably be 6 feet from them with the mic, but this is about good
>collegial spirit from their side, if you are that far away then you destroy
>the ensemble sound with their mic and the ensemble should also have a fair
>opportunity. Try to get a mic permit only 3 feet away from them and beware
>of hand held scores.

>Get your levels right before the concert and sit on your fingers. IF you
>didn' get them right, then make a fairly fast gain change and note the
>recorder time so that you can invert it in post of that track prior to
>mixing.

>The concert worked well with a static gain on all sound sources, so should
>your mix do, and it if can not so do, then you somehow goofeed. Some spot
>microphones should be have a compressor in the mix, but you could also hire
>Andrea Pellegrini to do the singing.

>On the channel module I almost always deploy two parametric eq presets in
>series, "soft highpass at 40 Hz" and "whatever mic standard eq". Get the
>temporal offset right, just as the ensemble follows the guy right under your
>main pair the spot mics do, they should be "haas window late", never early
>lest you should get double imaging. Expect to be able to get away with
>panning them closer to the center than they are, do NOT expect EVER to be
>able to pan anything across the mid line.

>Sit on your fingers once you get the mix right, there IS one that works,
>some of the time 1.4 to 2.8 compression on spot mikes will work for you,
>some of the time against you, do not doit if it is not helpful but spotmikes
>WILL get the crest factor wrong and it is reasonable to fix it correctly,
>whatever that is, for realism.

>You should similarly expect to have to add suitable verb, whatever that is
>to some spotmikes, on one occasion it was a blatantly unnatural
>plate-emulation that sounded just right and as part of the church, so do not
>be religious about your choices.
>´
>On the master module I also, almost always, deploy the "soft highpass at 40
>Hz" parametric preset, probably more like 30 Hz in its effect, then the mono
>VST in a gentle setting, mostly "doing things" below 60 Hz and then perhaps
>a suitable multiband compressor (Audition3 comes with a very configurable
>Izotope) designed for the occasion and after that perhaps a "gradual
>saturation compressor" and a hard limiter.

>So the bassmanagemenet is 3-fold: channel module, master module,
>mono-plugin, on one of my spot mikes I will deploy the mike highpass, but
>mostly I don't care, not doing it is easier and there is less to forget.
>Always manage bass before dynamic processing.

>Tim: feel free to email me to get a suggested setup of the Mono VST Tim.

>If you are a troll: If you don't see the point of dynamics processing in
>classical music, just look Pernille Sejlund up. She is a composer and her
>actively used dynamic range begins at the noise floor of the room. Don't
>bother asking, I only see your posts if quoted by someone ...


This is all reasonable and good advice, imo.

Just a few comments:

- there's nothing wrong with compression in classical music. It serves two purposes:
(1) compensate for exaggerated dynamics because some microphones are relatively
close to the source; (2) help "fit" concert hall dynamics into a living room. Done
right, it all seems natural and transparent. But take it away and people get annoyed
because *within the context of their home space* things can be apparently
unnaturally loud, then unnaturally quiet, yielding annoyance. The trick is knowing
how much compression to use under what circumstances.

- It's a slight difference of opinion, but I run my HP frequencies a little lower. I
do this because several years back once my subs were built and dialed in and room
response was just about ruler flat to 20 hz, I was surprised to discover just how
much realism was contained in that region from 20-35 hz. Not in terms of musical
note energy for all but a few instruments, but rather (apparently) in term of
initial LF attack info -- hammers on piano strings, fingers on guitar strings, and
so on.

It's not a huge thing, but it's definitely there.

Occasionally, I'll do a slight shelving cut in the low end but that's generally to
fix a problem with the hall, or even a less-than-ideal arrangement.

YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio





--

[Scott Dorsey]

Tim Sprout > wrote:
>
>Interesting...I just tried this on a 25 channel mix (combination of XY
>room mics, close mics, and triggered drum samples) and compared before
>and after mixdown tracks using the ABX Comparator component in
>foobar2000. The bass guitar was more prominent and had more definition
>after applying the high-pass. Is it a good idea then to also low-pass
>all channels at, say 20kHz?

Once you go into an A/D at 44.1, it'll do that low-passing for you
automatically. (There are some good arguments against high sample rates
for just that reason: allowing ultrasonics on your recording has some
disadvantages since the speakers aren't any happier with them than they
are with sub-bass).

If you're doing a multitrack mix, it's worthwhile to bandlimit tracks so
that as much noise as possible is eliminated, and that can wind up coming
into some very radical EQ. If you have sub-20 Hz junk, you're apt to have
it in all channels and when you bring them all up you wind up with a lot
of it, so filtering stuff on the bottom end is a good first cut. But you
might want to do even more radical things.... high-pass that triangle at
5 KHz to reduce leakage from the drums, etc.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 12:16:33 PM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 05:47:20 -0800 (PST), JackA >
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Welcome to "Pop" music.=20
>> >
>> Who cares how that was created; it has no DC offset. Now back to my
>> simple waveform.Using your skill and judgment, tell me if you think it
>> has a DC offset.
>
>I haven't a clue. But I see you're an Adobe Audition user. Allow me to shar=
>e a story.

Why is it that you always change the subject rather than answer anyone's
questions?

You might want to think about Don's question because it's actually rather
important.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
JackA > wrote:
>On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 2:42:47 PM UTC-5, Richard Kuschel wrote:
>> DC Offset- Here is a waveform with a lot of it from convertors circa 1988.
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/yoda8945/
>
>Not that I have many, but I have yet to see something that nasty on early (legit) CDs. You SURE it was the convertor's fault? Don't think man would even attempt to go digital looking at that!

The waveform isn't all that bad; part of the problem is that the DAW gives
you an envelope display instead of showing you the real waveform. The
waveform itself is fine, it's only a little offset, but the envelope average
looks terrible.

And no, you won't see offset on early CDs because mastering engineers had
bitscopes and would go back and tweak the converter offset when they saw
the zero line starting to move. But as the PCM-1610s became obsolete and
started moving into facilities with less-careful maintenance there were some
issues.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 9:02:45 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 12:16:33 PM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
> >> On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 05:47:20 -0800 (PST), JackA >
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Welcome to "Pop" music.=20
> >> >
> >> Who cares how that was created; it has no DC offset. Now back to my
> >> simple waveform.Using your skill and judgment, tell me if you think it
> >> has a DC offset.
> >
> >I haven't a clue. But I see you're an Adobe Audition user. Allow me to shar=
> >e a story.
>
> Why is it that you always change the subject rather than answer anyone's
> questions?

I don't, I answered honestly. I use software to determine offset. I don't have some godly ability to look at a waveform to determine offset.

>
> You might want to think about Don's question because it's actually rather
> important.

Someone posted another waveform (song), claiming 1988 circa AD convertors were crap. But, I NEVER ran across such a waveform. Why I question what I'm being told and/or shown.

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

[Tim Sprout]

On 2/4/2015 11:27 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
> "Tim Sprout" > skrev i en meddelelse
> ...
>
>> On 2/4/2015 10:26 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
>
>>> Both of you, do try Nugens "Mono" VST. It does wonders in terms of
>>> getting
>>> rid of out of phase VLF, such as the big city noise floor inside a
>>> building.
>
>> Thanks, Peter. I am unclear how to use monofilter. Do you apply monofilter
>> to the master bus in multi-track, or apply it to the final stereo track
>> after mixdown?
>
> You send the stereo signal through it whereever you can, I use it as a
> summing module insert to keep the number of virtual DSP operations down, I
> think it was Bob Ludwig who once stressed the major importance of that
> strategy and he is right, every dsp operation cloudifies. Its presets I see
> as demonstrations of what it can do, I use it in a gentler manner.
>
> Here's an approximate strategy, I'm not gonna post exactly what I do but I
> will describe it, it is not going to make the reader able to compete with me
> in terms of quality, I still have a major lead in actual experience.
>
> Tool is suitable microphones, mixer, recorder, computer with Audition 3 and
> for mixing: KEF loudspeakers
>
> Assume a classical live-remote with 2 to 8 tracks. (I can deploy more but it
> hasn't been relevant and now that I am officially a retiree and has sold my
> car I do not deploy very much, it will be interesting to see whether that
> changes.)
>
> Some people believe a spot-miked classical setup can be a CYA strategy, I
> don't. It is not in my opion possible to put the main pair where an "only a
> main pair" should be and get it to work well when combined with spotmikes.
> Commit, set them mikes for the recording you intend, mean what you do.
>
> If you have a piano with spot mike or spot mikes behind a trio, then put the
> main pair up for the trio and try to suppress the piano in it. Corner the
> market, do not allow competition and get the cleanest sound and then you can
> have the trio-sound up front and clear without spotmiking them and having
> them get harsh.
>
> With singing wimmen take time if possible to explain to them that yes, you
> would preferably be 6 feet from them with the mic, but this is about good
> collegial spirit from their side, if you are that far away then you destroy
> the ensemble sound with their mic and the ensemble should also have a fair
> opportunity. Try to get a mic permit only 3 feet away from them and beware
> of hand held scores.
>
> Get your levels right before the concert and sit on your fingers. IF you
> didn' get them right, then make a fairly fast gain change and note the
> recorder time so that you can invert it in post of that track prior to
> mixing.
>
> The concert worked well with a static gain on all sound sources, so should
> your mix do, and it if can not so do, then you somehow goofeed. Some spot
> microphones should be have a compressor in the mix, but you could also hire
> Andrea Pellegrini to do the singing.
>
> On the channel module I almost always deploy two parametric eq presets in
> series, "soft highpass at 40 Hz" and "whatever mic standard eq". Get the
> temporal offset right, just as the ensemble follows the guy right under your
> main pair the spot mics do, they should be "haas window late", never early
> lest you should get double imaging. Expect to be able to get away with
> panning them closer to the center than they are, do NOT expect EVER to be
> able to pan anything across the mid line.
>
> Sit on your fingers once you get the mix right, there IS one that works,
> some of the time 1.4 to 2.8 compression on spot mikes will work for you,
> some of the time against you, do not doit if it is not helpful but spotmikes
> WILL get the crest factor wrong and it is reasonable to fix it correctly,
> whatever that is, for realism.
>
> You should similarly expect to have to add suitable verb, whatever that is
> to some spotmikes, on one occasion it was a blatantly unnatural
> plate-emulation that sounded just right and as part of the church, so do not
> be religious about your choices.
> ´
> On the master module I also, almost always, deploy the "soft highpass at 40
> Hz" parametric preset, probably more like 30 Hz in its effect, then the mono
> VST in a gentle setting, mostly "doing things" below 60 Hz and then perhaps
> a suitable multiband compressor (Audition3 comes with a very configurable
> Izotope) designed for the occasion and after that perhaps a "gradual
> saturation compressor" and a hard limiter.
>
> So the bassmanagemenet is 3-fold: channel module, master module,
> mono-plugin, on one of my spot mikes I will deploy the mike highpass, but
> mostly I don't care, not doing it is easier and there is less to forget.
> Always manage bass before dynamic processing.
>
> Tim: feel free to email me to get a suggested setup of the Mono VST Tim.
>
> If you are a troll: If you don't see the point of dynamics processing in
> classical music, just look Pernille Sejlund up. She is a composer and her
> actively used dynamic range begins at the noise floor of the room. Don't
> bother asking, I only see your posts if quoted by someone ...
>
>> Tim Sprout
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Thanks much Peter, and all, for the helpful comments and discussion.
So very fascinating and interesting to learn how sound works.

Tim Sprout

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Frank Stearns" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> "Peter Larsen" > writes:

>>So the bassmanagemenet is 3-fold: channel module, master module,
>>mono-plugin, on one of my spot mikes I will deploy the mike highpass, but
>>mostly I don't care, not doing it is easier and there is less to forget.
>>Always manage bass before dynamic processing.

> - It's a slight difference of opinion, but I run my HP frequencies
> a little lower. I do this because several years back once my subs
> were built and dialed in and room response was just about ruler
> flat to 20 hz, I was surprised to discover just how much realism
> was contained in that region from 20-35 hz. Not in terms of musical
> note energy for all but a few instruments, but rather (apparently)
> in term of initial LF attack info -- hammers on piano strings,
> fingers on guitar strings, and so on.

Personally I agree, and yes, it is also wrong to sum the low range to mono
if you want room ambience correctly rendered. And even on vox
highpass-filtering does bad things way up in the midrange. And then there is
the pianist that hits the keyboard with way more fingers and kicks both feet
into the stage and it SHOULD cause the coffee on the sofa table to spill and
general shock also on playback, and there are flute subharmonics and ... and
... and ... and handslaps on a guitar ... AND there is the noise of the city
and the lorries in the street nearby and the trains underneath and the large
dieselelectric locomotive idling 500 meters away and the 30 Hz from the
commuter bus exhaust.

> It's not a huge thing, but it's definitely there.

Yes.

> Occasionally, I'll do a slight shelving cut in the low end but
> that's generally to fix a problem with the hall, or even a
> less-than-ideal arrangement.

It is a tradeoff. I prefer to always make a FFT analysis of what is going on
down there.

> YMMV.

Yes, and "horses for courses", it is about this recording, not about the one
yesterday and not about the one next week. Just as mic placement ... no,
having a fixed setup for concert grand just does not work, not even if it is
the same concert grand, the next keyboard operator may need the mic
differently positioned. That is why it is fun and not just a chore!

> Frank
> Mobile Audio

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Frank Stearns]

"Peter Larsen" > writes:

>"Frank Stearns" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

>> "Peter Larsen" > writes:

>>>So the bassmanagemenet is 3-fold: channel module, master module,
>>>mono-plugin, on one of my spot mikes I will deploy the mike highpass, but
>>>mostly I don't care, not doing it is easier and there is less to forget.
>>>Always manage bass before dynamic processing.

>> - It's a slight difference of opinion, but I run my HP frequencies
>> a little lower. I do this because several years back once my subs
>> were built and dialed in and room response was just about ruler
>> flat to 20 hz, I was surprised to discover just how much realism
>> was contained in that region from 20-35 hz. Not in terms of musical
>> note energy for all but a few instruments, but rather (apparently)
>> in term of initial LF attack info -- hammers on piano strings,
>> fingers on guitar strings, and so on.

>Personally I agree, and yes, it is also wrong to sum the low range to mono
>if you want room ambience correctly rendered. And even on vox
>highpass-filtering does bad things way up in the midrange. And then there is
>the pianist that hits the keyboard with way more fingers and kicks both feet
>into the stage and it SHOULD cause the coffee on the sofa table to spill and
>general shock also on playback, and there are flute subharmonics and ... and
>.. and ... and handslaps on a guitar ... AND there is the noise of the city
>and the lorries in the street nearby and the trains underneath and the large
>dieselelectric locomotive idling 500 meters away and the 30 Hz from the
>commuter bus exhaust.

Indeed. One of the lovely things about digital mixing is the ability to automate HP
(among other things) to get rid of such junk when audible (but then back it off
ASAP).

I had two "favorite" venues -- one hall had terrible LF rumble because of crummy
HVAC design; the other, a downtown church, had rumble from light rail tracks 60 feet
away.

Very easy to move up the HP when the stuff got exposed. Easy to see on a software
RTA; and just as easy to hear with that extended LF response from the subs.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 9:02:45 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> Why is it that you always change the subject rather than answer anyone's
>> questions?
>
>I don't, I answered honestly. I use software to determine offset. I don't have some godly ability to look at a waveform to determine offset.

Sure you do. Find a silent passage. Zoom in. Is the waveform (or the
envelope) right on the zero-crossing line? If so, there is DC offset. If
not, you don't have it.

Do you know what your software is doing? There are a couple of different
things it might be doing, including a high-pass filter.

Find out. Take a thing, do the test for DC offset, then do a high pass
at 5 Hz. After you high pass, there can obviously be no offset. Do the
test again.

But... in the end, the one sure and accurate test is to look at the waveform.

>> You might want to think about Don's question because it's actually rather
>> important.
>
>Someone posted another waveform (song), claiming 1988 circa AD convertors were crap. But, I NEVER ran across such a waveform. Why I question what I'm being told and/or shown.

Yes, this is the point. You have never run across appreciable DC offset.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 9:02:45 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >>
> >> Why is it that you always change the subject rather than answer anyone's
> >> questions?
> >
> >I don't, I answered honestly. I use software to determine offset. I don't have some godly ability to look at a waveform to determine offset.
>
> Sure you do. Find a silent passage. Zoom in. Is the waveform (or the
> envelope) right on the zero-crossing line? If so, there is DC offset. If
> not, you don't have it.
>
> Do you know what your software is doing? There are a couple of different
> things it might be doing, including a high-pass filter.
>
> Find out. Take a thing, do the test for DC offset, then do a high pass
> at 5 Hz. After you high pass, there can obviously be no offset. Do the
> test again.
>
> But... in the end, the one sure and accurate test is to look at the waveform.
>
> >> You might want to think about Don's question because it's actually rather
> >> important.
> >
> >Someone posted another waveform (song), claiming 1988 circa AD convertors were crap. But, I NEVER ran across such a waveform. Why I question what I'm being told and/or shown.
>
> Yes, this is the point. You have never run across appreciable DC offset.

Actually, on a bootleg Led Zeppelin CD it looked that way!!

But, maybe I'm overly concerned about it, but I assume there is no "standard" what is acceptable DC Offset. And, with music, there is no such thing as Zero DC offset?

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

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "Find a silent passage. Zoom in. Is the waveform (or the
envelope) right on the zero-crossing line? If so, there is DC offset."



????????

[JackA]

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 9:02:45 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >>
> >> Why is it that you always change the subject rather than answer anyone's
> >> questions?
> >
> >I don't, I answered honestly. I use software to determine offset. I don't have some godly ability to look at a waveform to determine offset.
>
> Sure you do. Find a silent passage. Zoom in. Is the waveform (or the
> envelope) right on the zero-crossing line? If so, there is DC offset. If
> not, you don't have it.
>
> Do you know what your software is doing? There are a couple of different
> things it might be doing, including a high-pass filter.
>
> Find out. Take a thing, do the test for DC offset, then do a high pass
> at 5 Hz. After you high pass, there can obviously be no offset. Do the
> test again.
>
> But... in the end, the one sure and accurate test is to look at the waveform.
>
> >> You might want to think about Don's question because it's actually rather
> >> important.
> >
> >Someone posted another waveform (song), claiming 1988 circa AD convertors were crap. But, I NEVER ran across such a waveform. Why I question what I'm being told and/or shown.
>
> Yes, this is the point. You have never run across appreciable DC offset.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott, I'm SURE many here have Adobe Audition or similar software. I'm sure that also has the ability to check and correct any DC offset, like Goldwave software I use. I did ask about it in the Goldwave forum, but no clear answer. Maybe one of those "gray" areas. I'm sure Goldwave just averages it. Because I sometime can never achieve perfection. Like I mentioned, as the signal began to fade, you'd see the bar-type VU meter begins to rise generally at a low frequency. That's, to me, is DC Offset, when you can SEE it but not HEAR it.

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>
>But, maybe I'm overly concerned about it, but I assume there is no "standard" what is acceptable DC Offset.

Not really. If there is no pop between tracks, nobody will care.

>And, with music, there is no such thing as Zero DC offset?

Sure there is, and you can tell by looking at the silence. The music is not
going to be symmetric but the silence will be at zero.

Ignore what the waveform looks like, that doesn't tell you anything. It's
the silent part that tells you want you want to know.

If there is no silent part, low-pass it at 1 Hz and see if anything is left.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote: "Find a silent passage. Zoom in. Is the waveform (or the
>envelope) right on the zero-crossing line? If so, there is DC offset."
>
>????????

Should be "not right on the zero-crossing line," sorry. My typo.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>
>Scott, I'm SURE many here have Adobe Audition or similar software. I'm sure=
> that also has the ability to check and correct any DC offset, like Goldwav=
>e software I use. I did ask about it in the Goldwave forum, but no clear an=
>swer. Maybe one of those "gray" areas. I'm sure Goldwave just averages it. =

I hope not, because averaging tells you nothing. The only thing that will
tell you what is going on is a low-pass (which is how Pro Tools deals with
it).

>Because I sometime can never achieve perfection. Like I mentioned, as the s=
>ignal began to fade, you'd see the bar-type VU meter begins to rise general=
>ly at a low frequency. That's, to me, is DC Offset, when you can SEE it but=
> not HEAR it.

Maybe, but it might be something else. Get the waveform or envelope display
and zoom in and see. If you can see it on the meters you'll sure it on the
envelope display. Could just be low frequency junk too.

If you're seeing it on random dubs from LP, I would bet that what you are
seeing is not DC but rumble. Filter everything below 16 Hz and that will
go away, but a DC offset removal tool will do nothing for it because it's
higher than DC but still too low to hear.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "In article >,
- show quoted text -
Should be "not right on the zero-crossing line," sorry. My typo.
- show quoted text -"

Thanks Scott! I can put down the phone call I was about to
make to a psychiatrist, LOL!

[JackA]

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:34:43 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >
> >Scott, I'm SURE many here have Adobe Audition or similar software. I'm sure=
> > that also has the ability to check and correct any DC offset, like Goldwav=
> >e software I use. I did ask about it in the Goldwave forum, but no clear an=
> >swer. Maybe one of those "gray" areas. I'm sure Goldwave just averages it. =
>
> I hope not, because averaging tells you nothing. The only thing that will
> tell you what is going on is a low-pass (which is how Pro Tools deals with
> it).
>
> >Because I sometime can never achieve perfection. Like I mentioned, as the s=
> >ignal began to fade, you'd see the bar-type VU meter begins to rise general=
> >ly at a low frequency. That's, to me, is DC Offset, when you can SEE it but=
> > not HEAR it.
>
> Maybe, but it might be something else. Get the waveform or envelope display
> and zoom in and see. If you can see it on the meters you'll sure it on the
> envelope display. Could just be low frequency junk too.
>
> If you're seeing it on random dubs from LP, I would bet that what you are
> seeing is not DC but rumble. Filter everything below 16 Hz and that will
> go away, but a DC offset removal tool will do nothing for it because it's
> higher than DC but still too low to hear.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

One day, I'll make a video of the odd things I find.
Just watching YouTube; someone ripped a cassette, side one-side two; appreciable offset. That is why I say grounding [may be/is] an issue. Some of the worst I've seen is where vinyl LPs are ripped to digital.

Jack

[Richard Kuschel]

Someone posted another waveform (song), claiming 1988 circa AD convertors were crap. But, I NEVER ran across such a waveform. Why I question what I'm being told and/or shown.

Jack
- show quoted text -


I posted that file and I did not say that 1988 convertors were crap. They may have been crap but I did not say it. Please don't misquote me.

I had no way of viewing that digital file until several years later. I knew there was something funny going on because every time I started playing that file I heard a click and my woofers jumped. If I transferred that file to an analog medium through transformers, the analog reproduction did not click. The original source was a Sony TCD D10 DAT machine, which was a greymarket import in January 1988. It was so far from perfect that it was ridiculous, but it made me a lot of money.

I sold that machine before I ever did any computer editing. My editing at that time consisted of a Revox and a razor blade.

[geoff]

On 7/02/2015 6:35 a.m., wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote: "Find a silent passage. Zoom in. Is the waveform (or the
> envelope) right on the zero-crossing line? If so, there is DC offset."
>
>
>
> ????????
>


Scott missed "no".

geoff

[JackA]

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 2:59:29 PM UTC-5, Richard Kuschel wrote:
> Someone posted another waveform (song), claiming 1988 circa AD convertors were crap. But, I NEVER ran across such a waveform. Why I question what I'm being told and/or shown.
>
> Jack
> - show quoted text -
>
>
> I posted that file and I did not say that 1988 convertors were crap. They may have been crap but I did not say it. Please don't misquote me.
>
> I had no way of viewing that digital file until several years later. I knew there was something funny going on because every time I started playing that file I heard a click and my woofers jumped. If I transferred that file to an analog medium through transformers, the analog reproduction did not click. The original source was a Sony TCD D10 DAT machine, which was a greymarket import in January 1988. It was so far from perfect that it was ridiculous, but it made me a lot of money.
>
> I sold that machine before I ever did any computer editing. My editing at that time consisted of a Revox and a razor blade.

Rich, sorry, I did not understand.

Let me get this right, I hope - you had an external DAT machine, connected it to a computer and transferred the audio to a binary file?

If so, this is where my theory come in about external devices, tape decks, turntables, whatever. Don't feel it was a converter fault, but maybe a grounding issue....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4mQc5KYBlQ

Jack

[Richard Kuschel]

show quoted text -
Rich, sorry, I did not understand.

Let me get this right, I hope - you had an external DAT machine, connected it to a computer and transferred the audio to a binary file?

If so, this is where my theory come in about external devices, tape decks, turntables, whatever. Don't feel it was a converter fault, but maybe a grounding issue....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4mQc5KYBlQ

Jack


No, the TCD-D10 was a consumer version portable Digital Audio Tape Recorder that was battery powered and self contained. Inputs on the machine were -10dBV lines and unbalanced microphone inputs. All output was analog on that machine.

Wasn't a grounding issue. It could have been leakage from an external phantom power supply, but I don't think so as virtually everything I recorded on it had DC offset.

I didn't even know what DC offset was until I started working with computer editing on Sound Designer a couple of years after I had worn out that machine and had already replaced it with another, newer professional model. I just transferred the tracks to Reel-Reel and edited on that.

I used a Sony DAT recorder for field work until two years ago when I replaced it with a Sound Devices 744T field recorder.

That first DAT machine was the only one that I had that gave consistent DC offset.

[JackA]

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 7:30:46 PM UTC-5, Richard Kuschel wrote:
> show quoted text -
> Rich, sorry, I did not understand.
>
> Let me get this right, I hope - you had an external DAT machine, connected it to a computer and transferred the audio to a binary file?
>
> If so, this is where my theory come in about external devices, tape decks, turntables, whatever. Don't feel it was a converter fault, but maybe a grounding issue....
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4mQc5KYBlQ
>
> Jack
>
>
> No, the TCD-D10 was a consumer version portable Digital Audio Tape Recorder that was battery powered and self contained. Inputs on the machine were -10dBV lines and unbalanced microphone inputs. All output was analog on that machine.
>
> Wasn't a grounding issue. It could have been leakage from an external phantom power supply, but I don't think so as virtually everything I recorded on it had DC offset.
>
> I didn't even know what DC offset was until I started working with computer editing on Sound Designer a couple of years after I had worn out that machine and had already replaced it with another, newer professional model. I just transferred the tracks to Reel-Reel and edited on that.
>
> I used a Sony DAT recorder for field work until two years ago when I replaced it with a Sound Devices 744T field recorder.
>
> That first DAT machine was the only one that I had that gave consistent DC offset.

Rich, I didn't even know there were DAT machines offered to public!! Probably high cost associated with them.
I ASSUME they were used for the very first digital (Pop music) recordings? Not sure how many tracks they typically offered? Made me wonder how they digitally mixed, but as you mentioned, output was analog!

It's just that I see many external devices used have greater or max DC offset, but maybe caused by the computer, not strictly grounding.

Thanks.

Jack

[Luxey]

�убота, 07. фебруар 2015. 01.30.46 UTC+1, Richard Kuschel је напи�ао/ла:
> show quoted text -

> No, the TCD-D10 was a consumer version portable Digital Audio Tape Recorder

I used to have TCD-D7, it served well, but finally fell apart into pieces, beyoond repair. Afterwards and since DATs were already rather obsolete I got my self a home "Hi-Fi" thing, 59ES, just in case.

[hank alrich]

JackA > wrote:

> Rich, I didn't even know there were DAT machines offered to public!!
> Probably high cost associated with them. I ASSUME they were used for the
> very first digital (Pop music) recordings? Not sure how many tracks they
> typically offered? Made me wonder how they digitally mixed, but as you
> mentioned, output was analog!
>

And there we have it folks. Zilch. Nada.

No idea who Richard Kuschel is or what he does.

One ****ing ignorant ASSumption after another.

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

[[email protected]]

hank N0Ne alrich wrote: "One ****ing ignorant ASSumption
after another. "

No.

You're just upset that the r.a.p. good ole boys club
is being infiltrated by fresh voices and objective,
alternative viewpoints.

Now go ahead, go into your little phonebooth or
alleyway, put on your N0NE cape, and tell me what
a shortbus dum**** you claim I am!


Folks like JackA and I are willing to confront and
challenge the status quo, and "best" practices
that are destroying the quality of music.

[geoff]

On 8/02/2015 8:50 a.m., JackA wrote:

> Rich, I didn't even know there were DAT machines offered to public!!
> Probably high cost associated with them. I ASSUME they were used for
> the very first digital (Pop music) recordings? Not sure how many
> tracks they typically offered? Made me wonder how they digitally
> mixed, but as you mentioned, output was analog!

The number of everyday common-knowledge things that you don't know
continues to astound everybody.


geoff

[JackA]

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 7:15:53 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 8/02/2015 8:50 a.m., JackA wrote:
>
> > Rich, I didn't even know there were DAT machines offered to public!!
> > Probably high cost associated with them. I ASSUME they were used for
> > the very first digital (Pop music) recordings? Not sure how many
> > tracks they typically offered? Made me wonder how they digitally
> > mixed, but as you mentioned, output was analog!
>
> The number of everyday common-knowledge things that you don't know
> continues to astound everybody.

It's Alt not ALT!!!!

Jack :-)
>
>
> geoff

[JackA]

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 6:41:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> hank N0Ne alrich wrote: "One ****ing ignorant ASSumption
> after another. "
>
> No.
>
> You're just upset that the r.a.p. good ole boys club
> is being infiltrated by fresh voices and objective,
> alternative viewpoints.
>
> Now go ahead, go into your little phonebooth or
> alleyway, put on your N0NE cape, and tell me what
> a shortbus dum**** you claim I am!
>
>
> Folks like JackA and I are willing to confront and
> challenge the status quo, and "best" practices
> that are destroying the quality of music.

You know, K, brick-walling Hank's music might actually improve it!
But the odd thing with Hank's music, if you apply noise reduction, you end up with silence!!

You, I, and a couple others here add a touch a class!! :-)

Thanks, K'

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>Rich, sorry, I did not understand.
>
>Let me get this right, I hope - you had an external DAT machine, connected =
>it to a computer and transferred the audio to a binary file?

Yes, this is how many people did live 2-track recording for many years.
It was a very convenient way to do field work.

>If so, this is where my theory come in about external devices, tape decks, =
>turntables, whatever. Don't feel it was a converter fault, but maybe a grou=
>nding issue....

I'm still waiting for you to explain how a grounding issue can magically
cause DC offset.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>
>Rich, I didn't even know there were DAT machines offered to public!! Probab=
>ly high cost associated with them.
>I ASSUME they were used for the very first digital (Pop music) recordings? =
>Not sure how many tracks they typically offered? Made me wonder how they di=
>gitally mixed, but as you mentioned, output was analog!

And once again, everything you think is totally wrong.

The DAT (which we should really call R-DAT) was originally intended as a
consumer recording medium. It never really took off, but it became a sort
standard professional format in spite of being kind of flaky. R-DAT is
a 2-track format with no ability to record the channels separately.

The first digital pop stuff was almost entirely multitracked... and really
digital recording (in the form of the horrible 3M, Mitsubishi, and DASH
machines didn't take off in the pop world at all.

In the pop world, there was really no reason to go the digital route, and
while a few folks used it, analogue production remained popular even decades
after the classical guys had all gone digital.

In the pop world, digital recording came in at the low end of the market
with the bargain basement ADAT machines making it possible for small studios
to have a lot of tracks for cheap and making running costs much cheaper.
The lower budget pop stuff was done digitally because it cost so much less.
Mind you, the ADAT gear didn't sound very good, but things improved.

>It's just that I see many external devices used have greater or max DC offs=
>et, but maybe caused by the computer, not strictly grounding.

Once it's in the digital domain, there's nothing to add DC offset to a signal.
Ground problems cannot add DC offset. DC offset is an artifact from the
conversion process, and it's one that was a lot more common back in the DAT
era than it is today.
--scott


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

[JackA]

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 8:43:53 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >
> >Rich, I didn't even know there were DAT machines offered to public!! Probab=
> >ly high cost associated with them.
> >I ASSUME they were used for the very first digital (Pop music) recordings? =
> >Not sure how many tracks they typically offered? Made me wonder how they di=
> >gitally mixed, but as you mentioned, output was analog!
>
> And once again, everything you think is totally wrong.
>
> The DAT (which we should really call R-DAT) was originally intended as a
> consumer recording medium. It never really took off, but it became a sort
> standard professional format in spite of being kind of flaky. R-DAT is
> a 2-track format with no ability to record the channels separately.
>
> The first digital pop stuff was almost entirely multitracked... and really
> digital recording (in the form of the horrible 3M, Mitsubishi, and DASH
> machines didn't take off in the pop world at all.
>
> In the pop world, there was really no reason to go the digital route, and
> while a few folks used it, analogue production remained popular even decades
> after the classical guys had all gone digital.
>
> In the pop world, digital recording came in at the low end of the market




"LOS ANGELES, CA--(Marketwire - Sep 25, 2012) - From its very start as an independent record label in 1982, Dave Grusin and Larry Rosen's GRP Records broke ground, both artistically and commercially. Known as the DIGITAL MASTER COMPANY, they were the first record company to adopt digital recording technology for all its releases, launch every release on CD world-wide, and one of the earliest to market itself as a lifestyle brand".

FYI: Mainly Jazz artists!!!

Thank you for trying to foul my mind..

Jack




> with the bargain basement ADAT machines making it possible for small studios
> to have a lot of tracks for cheap and making running costs much cheaper.
> The lower budget pop stuff was done digitally because it cost so much less.
> Mind you, the ADAT gear didn't sound very good, but things improved.
>
> >It's just that I see many external devices used have greater or max DC offs=
> >et, but maybe caused by the computer, not strictly grounding.
>
> Once it's in the digital domain, there's nothing to add DC offset to a signal.
> Ground problems cannot add DC offset. DC offset is an artifact from the
> conversion process, and it's one that was a lot more common back in the DAT
> era than it is today.
> --scott
>
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Luxey]

There's no doubt about our dumbness, as well as about the ignorance of your
counter part Jack.

What you two do not realise, your fresh voices make me lough out loud just about
every time I read anything you write on the group.
It's beyond imagination how stupid and ridiculous you both apear and how little
of ideaa you have about own appearance.

[Luxey]

недеља, 08. фебруар 2015. 00.41.33 UTC+1, је напи�ао/ла:
> hank N0Ne alrich wrote: "One ****ing ignorant ASSumption
> after another. "
>
> No.
>
> You're just upset that the r.a.p. good ole boys club
> is being infiltrated by fresh voices and objective,
> alternative viewpoints.
>
> Now go ahead, go into your little phonebooth or
> alleyway, put on your N0NE cape, and tell me what
> a shortbus dum**** you claim I am!
>
>
> Folks like JackA and I are willing to confront and
> challenge the status quo, and "best" practices
> that are destroying the quality of music.

There's no doubt about your dumbness, as well as about the ignorance of your
counter part Jack.

What you two do not realise, your fresh voices make me lough out loud just
about every time I read anything you write on the group.
It's beyond imagination how stupid and ridiculous you both apear and how little
of ideaa you have about own appearance.

[Rick Ruskin]

On 7 Feb 2015 20:43:50 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>JackA > wrote:
>>
snip.............
>
>The first digital pop stuff was almost entirely multitracked... and really
>digital recording (in the form of the horrible 3M, Mitsubishi, and DASH
>machines didn't take off in the pop world at all.

Why were these machines horrible? Bad sound? Unreliable? Cost?

>In the pop world, there was really no reason to go the digital route, and
>while a few folks used it, analogue production remained popular even decades
>after the classical guys had all gone digital.
>
snip


No reason? Kindly explain.




Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 10:17:18 PM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:

>
> What you two do not realise, your fresh voices make me lough out loud just
> about every time I read anything you write on the group.
> It's beyond imagination how stupid and ridiculous you both apear and how little
> of ideaa you have about own appearance.
________________

LOUGH out loud, ehh?

Can't stand your little good ole' boy network shaken up by a few status-quo-shattering rebels, eh?

That's all rec.audio.pro is - a CLUB, where the opinions of only a FEW matter.

[None]

< the-dumb****i- @ shortbus-dot-com> wrote in message
...
> Can't stand your little good ole' boy network shaken up by a few
> status-quo-shattering rebels, eh?
> That's all rec.audio.pro is - a CLUB, where the opinions of only a
> FEW matter.

Not really. It's really only the short-bus dumb****s like you and
Jersey Jack-off that don't matter. You're not rebelling or shattering
any status quo. You're just proving that you're morons.

[John Williamson]

On 08/02/2015 03:27, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2015 20:43:50 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> JackA > wrote:
>>>
> snip.............
>>
>> The first digital pop stuff was almost entirely multitracked... and really
>> digital recording (in the form of the horrible 3M, Mitsubishi, and DASH
>> machines didn't take off in the pop world at all.
>
> Why were these machines horrible? Bad sound? Unreliable? Cost?
>
All of the above.

>> In the pop world, there was really no reason to go the digital route, and
>> while a few folks used it, analogue production remained popular even decades
>> after the classical guys had all gone digital.
>>
> snip
>
>
> No reason? Kindly explain.
>
There was a workflow in place when recording and editing popular music
that took a while to change. There was also a lot of money invested in
analogue equipment that worked very well indeed. The workflow for
classical music is much simpler, and there is less equipment involved.

The digital equipment quality took a while to get to the point where it
was worth making the effort to change for the pop guys. Just one
example, in the early days of digital, the early computers available
couldn't render plugins and effects in real time, so you had to record,
then apply the plugins, then you could mix down, and any changes in the
settings had to be applied off line before you had another go at the
mix. In analogue, this all happened in real time, and initially, at
least, in better quality. One random example to show how things have
changed is that in the early '90s, the average home PC took about twice
the playing time to convert a file from .wav format to .mp3. Now, even
the slowest PC in my collection can convert a 2 minute track in a few
seconds.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 08/02/2015 10:45, John Williamson wrote:
> On 08/02/2015 03:27, Rick Ruskin wrote:
>> On 7 Feb 2015 20:43:50 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>> JackA > wrote:
>>>>
>> snip.............
>>>
>>> The first digital pop stuff was almost entirely multitracked... and
>>> really
>>> digital recording (in the form of the horrible 3M, Mitsubishi, and DASH
>>> machines didn't take off in the pop world at all.
>>
>> Why were these machines horrible? Bad sound? Unreliable? Cost?
>>
> All of the above.
>
And while I remember, we are now in danger of losing access to a lot of
early digital recordings that were made using a Betamax video tape
transport, as the playback machines fail beyond repair, and the tape
deteriorates in storage so that the error correction can no longer cope.

An unintended side effect of tracking using analogue tape for recording
is that the signal can be recovered, albeit with reduced quality, long
after a digital one has fallen off the digital cliff.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

Rick Ruskin > wrote:
>On 7 Feb 2015 20:43:50 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>JackA > wrote:
>>>
>snip.............
>>
>>The first digital pop stuff was almost entirely multitracked... and really
>>digital recording (in the form of the horrible 3M, Mitsubishi, and DASH
>>machines didn't take off in the pop world at all.
>
>Why were these machines horrible? Bad sound? Unreliable? Cost?

Converter issues for the most part.... all of the early ones tended to
sound pretty harsh and didn't handle reverb tails very well. The 3M
machines were almosty glassy-sounding.

Listen to the GRP album "Digital Duke" for an example of everything wrong
with early digital recording.

>>In the pop world, there was really no reason to go the digital route, and
>>while a few folks used it, analogue production remained popular even decades
>>after the classical guys had all gone digital.
>>
>snip
>
>No reason? Kindly explain.

What does it buy you? You don't need the added dynamic range, you don't
need the deep low end detail. But what you lost was an enormous amount of
production flexibility.

Editing the digital stuff was nightmarish... the DASH machines had analogue
cue tracks so you could find the point to cut, but some of the machines
had no real editing ability and if you did find the point to cut, it might
take a couple tries to do it without a blip. (The Nagra-D would let you
do a very silent cut in spite of the helical scan nonsense... there
was an outrageous amount of electronics involved in making that work.)

Punching in and punching out was impossible on most of the earlier machines
although by the time the Mitsubishi multitracks came out it was possible
to do a seamless punch without glitching.

But, even after the digital machines got to the point where they were
respectable production tools, they still didn't really add anything to
pop and rock production. And, of course there was a huge backlash against
the harsh sound, although some artists managed to use that harshness to
their advantage (IGY by Fagen being the best example I can think of now).
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>
>That's all rec.audio.pro is - a CLUB, where the opinions of only a FEW matter.

I think the issue is less opinion as people spouting out patently incorrect
information... not opinions. People want to nip that in the bud because if
it continues, someone might actually believe it.

Opinions are fine, we have a wide variety of them here.
--scott

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 7 Feb 2015 20:44:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 10:17:18 PM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
>
>>
>> What you two do not realise, your fresh voices make me lough out loud just
>> about every time I read anything you write on the group.
>> It's beyond imagination how stupid and ridiculous you both apear and how little
>> of ideaa you have about own appearance.
>________________
>
>LOUGH out loud, ehh?
>
>Can't stand your little good ole' boy network shaken up by a few status-quo-shattering rebels, eh?
>
>That's all rec.audio.pro is - a CLUB, where the opinions of only a FEW matter.

Let me draw a Venn diagram for you. There is a large circle called new
ideas. Inside that is a tiny circle called new ideas with actual
value. What you and JackA need to demonstrate is that you are actually
inside that tiny circle. You don't get to be there by simply claiming
it.

The large circle you are deriding - the one of existing knowledge -
actually has demonstrated merit backing it up, not simply some hot
air. Time to put up, boys.

d

[Luxey]

недеља, 08. фебруар 2015. 05.44.24 UTC+1, је напи�ао/ла:

> LOUGH out loud, ehh?
>
> Can't stand your little good ole' boy network shaken up by a few status-quo-shattering rebels, eh?
>
> That's all rec.audio.pro is - a CLUB, where the opinions of only a FEW matter.

Oh, ****, I made a typo, now I'm busted for goods.

You moron, over the years, out of the people you can see post here, there was
probably not a single one not get into fight over some issue with at least one
other contributor. We are not all "friends" here. I may be in more kill files
than you are. In spite, each and every contributor could not do otherwise but tell you how foolish you seem to be and ask you to stop spaamming.

[JackA]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 5:46:14 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 08/02/2015 03:27, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> > On 7 Feb 2015 20:43:50 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >
> >> JackA > wrote:
> >>>
> > snip.............
> >>
> >> The first digital pop stuff was almost entirely multitracked... and really
> >> digital recording (in the form of the horrible 3M, Mitsubishi, and DASH
> >> machines didn't take off in the pop world at all.
> >
> > Why were these machines horrible? Bad sound? Unreliable? Cost?
> >
> All of the above.
>
> >> In the pop world, there was really no reason to go the digital route, and
> >> while a few folks used it, analogue production remained popular even decades
> >> after the classical guys had all gone digital.
> >>
> > snip
> >
> >
> > No reason? Kindly explain.
> >
> There was a workflow in place when recording and editing popular music
> that took a while to change. There was also a lot of money invested in
> analogue equipment that worked very well indeed. The workflow for
> classical music is much simpler, and there is less equipment involved.
>
> The digital equipment quality took a while to get to the point where it
> was worth making the effort to change for the pop guys. Just one
> example, in the early days of digital, the early computers available
> couldn't render plugins and effects in real time, so you had to record,
> then apply the plugins, then you could mix down, and any changes in the
> settings had to be applied off line before you had another go at the
> mix. In analogue, this all happened in real time, and initially, at
> least, in better quality. One random example to show how things have
> changed is that in the early '90s, the average home PC took about twice
> the playing time to convert a file from .wav format to .mp3. Now, even
> the slowest PC in my collection can convert a 2 minute track in a few
> seconds.

Twice the time? It wasn't until they had Windows' MP3 encoders that could handle a greater amount of data, the DOS versions took forever to encode, even at 128kbps!! I used to go shopping to kill timer, hoping the MP3 would be completed when I returned!! :-)

Jack


> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[JackA]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 8:17:13 AM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2015 20:44:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 10:17:18 PM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> What you two do not realise, your fresh voices make me lough out loud just
> >> about every time I read anything you write on the group.
> >> It's beyond imagination how stupid and ridiculous you both apear and how little
> >> of ideaa you have about own appearance.
> >________________
> >
> >LOUGH out loud, ehh?
> >
> >Can't stand your little good ole' boy network shaken up by a few status-quo-shattering rebels, eh?
> >
> >That's all rec.audio.pro is - a CLUB, where the opinions of only a FEW matter.
>
> Let me draw a Venn diagram for you. There is a large circle called new
> ideas. Inside that is a tiny circle called new ideas with actual
> value. What you and JackA need to demonstrate is that you are actually
> inside that tiny circle. You don't get to be there by simply claiming
> it.
>
> The large circle you are deriding - the one of existing knowledge -
> actually has demonstrated merit backing it up, not simply some hot
> air. Time to put up, boys.

Watch it there with that "boys" comment!!!

Anyway, thanks for your invaluable input, Donald, not sure how this group survived without it!!

What, you shut down your site???...
http://www.pearce.uk.com/

Jack
>
> d

[Trevor]

On 8/02/2015 11:03 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
>>
>> That's all rec.audio.pro is - a CLUB, where the opinions of only a FEW matter.
>
> I think the issue is less opinion as people spouting out patently incorrect
> information... not opinions. People want to nip that in the bud because if
> it continues, someone might actually believe it.

Too late for that. The majority of the worlds population seems to
believe an unsupported ignorant opinion has just as much right of place
as proven fact. All the worlds politicians would be out of work
otherwise. :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 8/02/2015 11:15 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 8/02/2015 8:50 a.m., JackA wrote:
>> Rich, I didn't even know there were DAT machines offered to public!!
>> Probably high cost associated with them. I ASSUME they were used for
>> the very first digital (Pop music) recordings? Not sure how many
>> tracks they typically offered? Made me wonder how they digitally
>> mixed, but as you mentioned, output was analog!
>
> The number of everyday common-knowledge things that you don't know
> continues to astound everybody.

Actually I doubt many here are astounded any more. :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 8/02/2015 10:16 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> And while I remember, we are now in danger of losing access to a lot of
> early digital recordings that were made using a Betamax video tape
> transport, as the playback machines fail beyond repair, and the tape
> deteriorates in storage so that the error correction can no longer cope.
>
> An unintended side effect of tracking using analogue tape for recording
> is that the signal can be recovered, albeit with reduced quality, long
> after a digital one has fallen off the digital cliff.

And one intended benefit of digital is that the file can be losslessly
transferred to another storage format as necessary. Something always
impossible with analog.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>
>"LOS ANGELES, CA--(Marketwire - Sep 25, 2012) - From its very start as an i=
>ndependent record label in 1982, Dave Grusin and Larry Rosen's GRP Records =
>broke ground, both artistically and commercially. Known as the DIGITAL MAST=
>ER COMPANY, they were the first record company to adopt digital recording t=
>echnology for all its releases, launch every release on CD world-wide, and =
>one of the earliest to market itself as a lifestyle brand".=20

Yes, this is why I mentioned Flim and the BBs and Digital Duke earlier in
this thread as examples of terrible-sounding early digital recordings.

GRP really was the last of the audiophile labels, heavy into gimmicky
technology and exaggerated technique. They were the Command of their
era.

>FYI: Mainly Jazz artists!!!

Indeed, yes. Not rock/pop.
--scott

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