Mixing Like The Audio Pros 101

[JackA]

I typically mix using headphones, but this time I used speakers!! I like stereo, not crude monophonic sounding mixes. I'm still not thrilled with the mix, but it's a WIP, Work In Progress. I added a cute opening, but, the one thing I'm really excited about was finding a "Paulstretch" utility, [in Audacity] that I've been looking for and it was right under my nose!! You might notice it on the ending, I "stretched" the guitar so it fades longer!!....

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/helenwheels-r5.mp3

Jack

[John Williamson]

On 11/03/2015 12:13, JackA wrote:
> I typically mix using headphones, but this time I used speakers!! I like stereo, not crude monophonic sounding mixes. I'm still not thrilled with the mix, but it's a WIP, Work In Progress. I added a cute opening, but, the one thing I'm really excited about was finding a "Paulstretch" utility, [in Audacity] that I've been looking for and it was right under my nose!! You might notice it on the ending, I "stretched" the guitar so it fades longer!!...
>
<Yawn>

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 8:24:27 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 11/03/2015 12:13, JackA wrote:
> > I typically mix using headphones, but this time I used speakers!! I like stereo, not crude monophonic sounding mixes. I'm still not thrilled with the mix, but it's a WIP, Work In Progress. I added a cute opening, but, the one thing I'm really excited about was finding a "Paulstretch" utility, [in Audacity] that I've been looking for and it was right under my nose!! You might notice it on the ending, I "stretched" the guitar so it fades longer!!...
> >
> <Yawn>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

Thanks for the nice compliment, John!!!

Did I ever tell you, Gene, who heads Audioholics web site, after I made a single post about "remastering", he said he had/has a "position" for me!!
Probably because I know more than the average bear "professional" mixers and remasterers!
I don't expect the majority of people would appreciate a superior sound quality mix, only 15% of society does!
Most "audiophiles" are only concerned with hardware rather than finding impressive sounding source material to play on their "gear".
And, remember, the ONLY difference between an amateur and a professional is money!!!

Jack

[John Williamson]

On 11/03/2015 16:18, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 8:24:27 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 11/03/2015 12:13, JackA wrote:
>>> I typically mix using headphones, but this time I used speakers!! I like stereo, not crude monophonic sounding mixes. I'm still not thrilled with the mix, but it's a WIP, Work In Progress. I added a cute opening, but, the one thing I'm really excited about was finding a "Paulstretch" utility, [in Audacity] that I've been looking for and it was right under my nose!! You might notice it on the ending, I "stretched" the guitar so it fades longer!!...
>>>
>> <Yawn>
>>
>> --
>> Tciao for Now!
>>
>> John.
>
> Thanks for the nice compliment, John!!!
>
You're welcome.

> Did I ever tell you, Gene, who heads Audioholics web site, after I made a single post about "remastering", he said he had/has a "position" for me!!
> Probably because I know more than the average bear "professional" mixers and remasterers!
> I don't expect the majority of people would appreciate a superior sound quality mix, only 15% of society does!
> Most "audiophiles" are only concerned with hardware rather than finding impressive sounding source material to play on their "gear".
> And, remember, the ONLY difference between an amateur and a professional is money!!!
>
I appreciate a superior sound quality mix, that's why I start with a 24
bit uncompressed recording of real musicians with carefully positioned
microphones and then delicately adjust the levels and other parameters
to sound as good as the musicians think they do. Repeat for almost all
the posters on here who do not also play the music.

I don't post links to works in progress, expecting professionals to fall
over themselves telling me how good they are. Even you say you aren't
happy with the latest one, so why post it? I won't release anything
other than a finished CD, that the band tell me they like, and the
public are willing to pay the band and I to listen to. I would certainly
*never* post an mp3 file as a finished product anywhere that values good
sound quality. Repeat for all the posters on here.

You still haven't told us who's leaking all these original multitrack
tapes that you claim to be remixing, as I'm sure the studios, performers
and writers would love to know who they are. ;-)


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
JackA > wrote:
> And, remember, the ONLY difference between an amateur and a professional
> is money!!!

Right. You go to the old lady down the road when ill, then?

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch *

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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 12:45:13 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 11/03/2015 16:18, JackA wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 8:24:27 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 11/03/2015 12:13, JackA wrote:
> >>> I typically mix using headphones, but this time I used speakers!! I like stereo, not crude monophonic sounding mixes. I'm still not thrilled with the mix, but it's a WIP, Work In Progress. I added a cute opening, but, the one thing I'm really excited about was finding a "Paulstretch" utility, [in Audacity] that I've been looking for and it was right under my nose!! You might notice it on the ending, I "stretched" the guitar so it fades longer!!...
> >>>
> >> <Yawn>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tciao for Now!
> >>
> >> John.
> >
> > Thanks for the nice compliment, John!!!
> >
> You're welcome.
>
> > Did I ever tell you, Gene, who heads Audioholics web site, after I made a single post about "remastering", he said he had/has a "position" for me!!
> > Probably because I know more than the average bear "professional" mixers and remasterers!
> > I don't expect the majority of people would appreciate a superior sound quality mix, only 15% of society does!
> > Most "audiophiles" are only concerned with hardware rather than finding impressive sounding source material to play on their "gear".
> > And, remember, the ONLY difference between an amateur and a professional is money!!!
> >
> I appreciate a superior sound quality mix, that's why I start with a 24
> bit uncompressed recording of real musicians with carefully positioned
> microphones and then delicately adjust the levels and other parameters
> to sound as good as the musicians think they do. Repeat for almost all
> the posters on here who do not also play the music.
>
> I don't post links to works in progress, expecting professionals to fall
> over themselves telling me how good they are. Even you say you aren't
> happy with the latest one, so why post it? I won't release anything
> other than a finished CD, that the band tell me they like, and the
> public are willing to pay the band and I to listen to. I would certainly
> *never* post an mp3 file as a finished product anywhere that values good
> sound quality. Repeat for all the posters on here.
>
> You still haven't told us who's leaking all these original multitrack
> tapes that you claim to be remixing, as I'm sure the studios, performers
> and writers would love to know who they are. ;-)

I know you guys are a bit slow in understanding :) I've explained it all before.
I have heard (3) radio stations using these multi-tracks, only one was non-profit! I'm against the profiting, especially with radio crap in US and UK!
I'm sure if Paul McCartney heard my remix of Band On The Run - song, he'd be overwhelmed with thanks if I officially mixed it!! But, I would not be like the other jokers who remix/remaster, I'd select several people to gain their input on the mixes and would be compensated for their time and help!!

I posted the latest version, because I was thrilled with the ability to "stretch" audio!! I'm sure if I asked here how to do it, people would just scratch their heads, even those high-class Adobe Audition ones!!

So, you prefer the "band" approve your work, rather than someone who knows decent sound quality? Let's face it, music artists strum guitars and sing the blues because they lack any other talent!! Actually, very interesting, as I discovered, once the fame is gone, suicide possibilities become great!!

Anyway, maybe one day, when you're not shy, you'll post some of your own work for me to enjoy!

Jack


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

[geoff]

On 12/03/2015 5:18 a.m., JackA wrote:

>
> Did I ever tell you, Gene, who heads Audioholics web site, after I
> made a single post about "remastering", he said he had/has a
> "position" for me!!

Kneeling, shoulders down on the ground and brace yourself

8===o (_)*(_)

geoff

[JackA]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 4:00:51 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 12/03/2015 5:18 a.m., JackA wrote:
>
> >
> > Did I ever tell you, Gene, who heads Audioholics web site, after I
> > made a single post about "remastering", he said he had/has a
> > "position" for me!!
>
> Kneeling, shoulders down on the ground and brace yourself
>
> 8===o (_)*(_)
>
> geoff

Filthy! Best be careful of those LGBT activist!!

Jack

[JackA]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 1:40:22 PM UTC-4, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article >,
> JackA > wrote:
> > And, remember, the ONLY difference between an amateur and a professional
> > is money!!!
>
> Right. You go to the old lady down the road when ill, then?
>
> --
> *Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch *
>
> Dave Plowman London SW
> To e-mail, change noise into sound.

No, Dave, your e-mail is correct with "noise"!!! Your specialty!! :)

Jack

[[email protected]]

>
> You still haven't told us who's leaking all these original multitrack
> tapes that you claim to be remixing, as I'm sure the studios, performers
> and writers would love to know who they are. ;-)
>
>

the raw multi-tracks and where they came from is really the only interesting aspect of all this

Mark

[JackA]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 5:25:59 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> >
> > You still haven't told us who's leaking all these original multitrack
> > tapes that you claim to be remixing, as I'm sure the studios, performers
> > and writers would love to know who they are. ;-)
> >
> >
>
> the raw multi-tracks and where they came from is really the only interesting aspect of all this

Mark, before others here began to control your mind, you indirectly paid me a nice compliment on sound quality. I appreciate it.

Besides, in Steve Hoffman's forum, some DJ, somewhere, was playing the unreleased full-length multi-tracks of Creedence Clearwater Revival!!

What's in your wallet?

Jack

>
> Mark

[John Williamson]

On 11/03/2015 19:07, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 12:45:13 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> You still haven't told us who's leaking all these original multitrack
>> tapes that you claim to be remixing, as I'm sure the studios, performers
>> and writers would love to know who they are. ;-)
>
> I know you guys are a bit slow in understanding :) I've explained it all before.
> I have heard (3) radio stations using these multi-tracks, only one was non-profit! I'm against the profiting, especially with radio crap in US and UK!
> I'm sure if Paul McCartney heard my remix of Band On The Run - song, he'd be overwhelmed with thanks if I officially mixed it!! But, I would not be like the other jokers who remix/remaster, I'd select several people to gain their input on the mixes and would be compensated for their time and help!!
>
I'm just as sure he'd sue the pants off you, or banish you to the Mull
Of Kintyre, which is a real place that he owns, and full of the most
vicious midges in the World. They *love* Americans, they taste *so*
good. :-)

So where *did* you steal the multitracks from? Especially the 6 track
one that came out of a studio that only had a 4 track recorder. If you
used the Multitrack Master website, those ripped off tracks even sound
bad on laptop speakers.

> I posted the latest version, because I was thrilled with the ability to "stretch" audio!! I'm sure if I asked here how to do it, people would just scratch their heads, even those high-class Adobe Audition ones!!
>
Nah, we all just use the handy tool provided in any reasonably good DAW,
or buy a plugin. It's very handy for lining up the beat where the bass
player or the drummer's a bit lax. The effect has been round for at
least 20 years, since before the days of CoolEdit 96, as has the ability
to change the pitch without altering the duration. Now, that one, you
can have *real* fun with, as well as saving an otherwise excellent take
with the odd fluffed note in it. ;-)

> So, you prefer the "band" approve your work, rather than someone who knows decent sound quality? Let's face it, music artists strum guitars and sing the blues because they lack any other talent!! Actually, very interesting, as I discovered, once the fame is gone, suicide possibilities become great!!
>
Musicians (Or, more exactly, their Significant Others and the audience)
know *exactly* how they want to sound, IME. Conductors know exactly how
the orchestra should sound. I'd also be wary of dissing musicians, some
of them have very nasty friends...

I've even known people buy a CD I've produced *after* they heard the
accordion band, and trust me, I recorded them with earplugs in, hidden
by a pair of switched off headphones. They sounded a lot better on the
monitors after a few tweaks. ;-)

> Anyway, maybe one day, when you're not shy, you'll post some of your own work for me to enjoy!
>
I have, and it's not hard to find. Of course, you'd not like it as it's
just a good choir singing some religious stuff the soloist wrote, with a
piano accompaniment. No drums, no distorted guitars, no massive 3kHz
peak, no compression, just a good solid stereo image that lets you
imagine you're in the room, as long as you use good reproduction
equipment and close your eyes.

There's also a rather good recording I made of an orchestra playing in
Rouen cathedral floating round somewhere. Now that's got *real* bass,
down to a 32 foot pedal on the organ. Shakes the room, it does, with a
decent subwoofer. Now that one really did take very careful microphone
positioning and excellent playing and conducting, as the orchestra were
about 50 yards away from the organ.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 7:05:38 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 11/03/2015 19:07, JackA wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 12:45:13 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> You still haven't told us who's leaking all these original multitrack
> >> tapes that you claim to be remixing, as I'm sure the studios, performers
> >> and writers would love to know who they are. ;-)
> >
> > I know you guys are a bit slow in understanding :) I've explained it all before.
> > I have heard (3) radio stations using these multi-tracks, only one was non-profit! I'm against the profiting, especially with radio crap in US and UK!
> > I'm sure if Paul McCartney heard my remix of Band On The Run - song, he'd be overwhelmed with thanks if I officially mixed it!! But, I would not be like the other jokers who remix/remaster, I'd select several people to gain their input on the mixes and would be compensated for their time and help!!
> >
> I'm just as sure he'd sue the pants off you, or banish you to the Mull
> Of Kintyre, which is a real place that he owns, and full of the most
> vicious midges in the World. They *love* Americans, they taste *so*
> good. :-)
>
> So where *did* you steal the multitracks from? Especially the 6 track
> one that came out of a studio that only had a 4 track recorder. If you
> used the Multitrack Master website, those ripped off tracks even sound
> bad on laptop speakers.

You wish!!!


>
> > I posted the latest version, because I was thrilled with the ability to "stretch" audio!! I'm sure if I asked here how to do it, people would just scratch their heads, even those high-class Adobe Audition ones!!
> >
> Nah, we all just use the handy tool provided in any reasonably good DAW,
> or buy a plugin. It's very handy for lining up the beat where the bass
> player or the drummer's a bit lax. The effect has been round for at
> least 20 years, since before the days of CoolEdit 96, as has the ability
> to change the pitch without altering the duration. Now, that one, you
> can have *real* fun with, as well as saving an otherwise excellent take
> with the odd fluffed note in it. ;-)

Typical. I mention something, then you followers claim things you didn't even know you had! And it's not FLUFF!!!

>
> > So, you prefer the "band" approve your work, rather than someone who knows decent sound quality? Let's face it, music artists strum guitars and sing the blues because they lack any other talent!! Actually, very interesting, as I discovered, once the fame is gone, suicide possibilities become great!!
> >
> Musicians (Or, more exactly, their Significant Others and the audience)
> know *exactly* how they want to sound, IME. Conductors know exactly how
> the orchestra should sound. I'd also be wary of dissing musicians, some
> of them have very nasty friends...

So, why do they need you, if they know how they want whatever to sound? They can't turn a volume knob?
Here, people like Scott think there's a special talent needed to mix/master music. Far from the truth. Some "engineers" were initially hired as song writers!!
Recording studios began popping up everywhere (late '60's). Not because they offered any real talent, many of them allowed artists to do drugs which made them favorable! Look at Abbey Road, their only top dog person was Alan Parsons. I guess the other "engineers" had potatoes in their ears! I see Alan has teamed up with Steven Wilson, also from the UK. Last I saw of Alan, he looked like Neil Young, both spent!!

>
> I've even known people buy a CD I've produced *after* they heard the
> accordion band, and trust me, I recorded them with earplugs in, hidden
> by a pair of switched off headphones. They sounded a lot better on the
> monitors after a few tweaks. ;-)


Okay, maybe you have an ounce of talent. If so, I have a pound!! :)

>
> > Anyway, maybe one day, when you're not shy, you'll post some of your own work for me to enjoy!
> >
> I have, and it's not hard to find. Of course, you'd not like it as it's
> just a good choir singing some religious stuff the soloist wrote, with a
> piano accompaniment. No drums, no distorted guitars, no massive 3kHz
> peak, no compression, just a good solid stereo image that lets you
> imagine you're in the room, as long as you use good reproduction
> equipment and close your eyes.
>
> There's also a rather good recording I made of an orchestra playing in
> Rouen cathedral floating round somewhere. Now that's got *real* bass,
> down to a 32 foot pedal on the organ. Shakes the room, it does, with a
> decent subwoofer. Now that one really did take very careful microphone
> positioning and excellent playing and conducting, as the orchestra were
> about 50 yards away from the organ.

Well, maybe one decade you'll post something and I'll be impressed!! :)

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

[hank alrich]

John Williamson > wrote:

> Now that's got *real* bass,
> down to a 32 foot pedal on the organ.

Man, jacky's laptop will squirt all over itself!


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

[John Williamson]

On 12/03/2015 01:47, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 7:05:38 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> So where *did* you steal the multitracks from? Especially the 6 track
>> one that came out of a studio that only had a 4 track recorder. If you
>> used the Multitrack Master website, those ripped off tracks even sound
>> bad on laptop speakers.
>
> You wish!!!
>
So, where *did* you steal them from?

>> Nah, we all just use the handy tool provided in any reasonably good DAW,
>> or buy a plugin. It's very handy for lining up the beat where the bass
>> player or the drummer's a bit lax. The effect has been round for at
>> least 20 years, since before the days of CoolEdit 96, as has the ability
>> to change the pitch without altering the duration. Now, that one, you
>> can have *real* fun with, as well as saving an otherwise excellent take
>> with the odd fluffed note in it. ;-)
>
> Typical. I mention something, then you followers claim things you didn't even know you had! And it's not FLUFF!!!
>
Oh, dearie me. You don't even know what a fluffed note is. ;-)

>> Musicians (Or, more exactly, their Significant Others and the audience)
>> know *exactly* how they want to sound, IME. Conductors know exactly how
>> the orchestra should sound. I'd also be wary of dissing musicians, some
>> of them have very nasty friends...
>
> So, why do they need you, if they know how they want whatever to sound? They can't turn a volume knob?
> Here, people like Scott think there's a special talent needed to mix/master music. Far from the truth. Some "engineers" were initially hired as song writers!!
> Recording studios began popping up everywhere (late '60's). Not because they offered any real talent, many of them allowed artists to do drugs which made them favorable! Look at Abbey Road, their only top dog person was Alan Parsons. I guess the other "engineers" had potatoes in their ears! I see Alan has teamed up with Steven Wilson, also from the UK. Last I saw of Alan, he looked like Neil Young, both spent!!
>
They know how they want to sound, They *don't* have time to learn how to
get the recording sounding that way, apart from a very small minority.
My favourite engineer's tool was a knob that one engineer had on his
desk for clients to twiddle. It didn't actually *do* anything, but the
client twiddled it and was happier with the sound.
>>
>> I've even known people buy a CD I've produced *after* they heard the
>> accordion band, and trust me, I recorded them with earplugs in, hidden
>> by a pair of switched off headphones. They sounded a lot better on the
>> monitors after a few tweaks. ;-)
>
>
> Okay, maybe you have an ounce of talent. If so, I have a pound!! :)
>
How many copies of your stuff have you sold for cash in hand? 2? 3? Or none?

> Well, maybe one decade you'll post something and I'll be impressed!! :)
>
And you might post something halfway decent, but I'm not holding my breath.

if you search, there are links on this group to some of my work, which I
have on my own website as mp3 files, but they're there as a service to a
client who wanted to check the balance before we committed to CD.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 12/03/2015 04:11, Jeff Henig wrote:
> hank alrich > wrote:
>> John Williamson > wrote:
>>
>>> Now that's got *real* bass,
>>> down to a 32 foot pedal on the organ.
>>
>> Man, jacky's laptop will squirt all over itself!
>>
>
> Huh.
>
> Sloppy bass.
>
> Huh.
>
Ewww!!!!!

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 3/12/2015 12:11 AM, Jeff Henig wrote:
> hank alrich > wrote:
>> John Williamson > wrote:
>>
>>> Now that's got *real* bass,
>>> down to a 32 foot pedal on the organ.
>>
>> Man, jacky's laptop will squirt all over itself!
>>
>
> Huh.
>
> Sloppy bass.
>
> Huh.
>
Because you know [it's]
All about that bass
'Bout that bass, no treble...

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[JackA]

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 9:55:49 AM UTC-4, Ron C wrote:
> On 3/12/2015 12:11 AM, Jeff Henig wrote:
> > hank alrich > wrote:[i]
> >> John Williamson > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Now that's got *real* bass,
> >>> down to a 32 foot pedal on the organ.
> >>
> >> Man, jacky's laptop will squirt all over itself!
> >>
> >
> > Huh.
> >
> > Sloppy bass.
> >
> > Huh.
> >
> Because you know
> All about that bass
> 'Bout that bass, no treble...
>
> ==
> Later...
> Ron Capik
> --

Oh, my, someone knows a current song!! And here I thought you were a bunch of old crows!!

One good reason not to buy Adobe Audition...

https://vimeo.com/5698678

Because you won't have any money left for a haircut!!!

Jack

[JackA]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 5:25:59 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> >
> > You still haven't told us who's leaking all these original multitrack
> > tapes that you claim to be remixing, as I'm sure the studios, performers
> > and writers would love to know who they are. ;-)
> >
> >
>
> the raw multi-tracks and where they came from is really the only interesting aspect of all this
>
> Mark

Mainly, what I have is condensed tracks, premixed tracks to minimize file size. But, someone here mentions 24 tracks....
https://moggfiles.wordpress.com/

Just sad to see how record companies shaft you, the consumer.

Jack

[John Williamson]

On 12/03/2015 19:26, JackA wrote:
>
> Mainly, what I have is condensed tracks, premixed tracks to minimize file size. But, someone here mentions 24 tracks....
> https://moggfiles.wordpress.com/
>
Unlicenced rips of files from computer games...

> Just sad to see how record companies shaft you, the consumer.
>
>
The record companies don't "shaft" the consumer. Nobody forces people to
buy recordings, and more and more musicians are self publishing.

The record companies, including the online streaming services, do
however, shaft the musicians and writers.

The worst sort of shafting of musicians, though, is ripping off a
multitrack and posting it on the web.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 3:44:06 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 12/03/2015 19:26, JackA wrote:
> >
> > Mainly, what I have is condensed tracks, premixed tracks to minimize file size. But, someone here mentions 24 tracks....
> > https://moggfiles.wordpress.com/
> >
> Unlicenced rips of files from computer games...
>
> > Just sad to see how record companies shaft you, the consumer.
> >
> >
> The record companies don't "shaft" the consumer. Nobody forces people to
> buy recordings, and more and more musicians are self publishing.

-- I live in America, you know, where Made In The USA is supposed to mean something, not some spent sounding master tape marketed on CD as "remastered"!
That's the "shaft". Then, later on, Heros are listed and credited on CDs as gurus of mastering. Most of them should just stick to flipping burgers.

>
> The record companies, including the online streaming services, do
> however, shaft the musicians and writers.

-- Been going on for decades!!
>
> The worst sort of shafting of musicians, though, is ripping off a
> multitrack and posting it on the web.

Let me count the decades... hmm, lots of them are DEAD!!

Jack

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

[jimmy]

he doesnt own the mull he just lives on it

THE LAIRD



"John Williamson" wrote in message ...

On 11/03/2015 19:07, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 12:45:13 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> You still haven't told us who's leaking all these original multitrack
>> tapes that you claim to be remixing, as I'm sure the studios, performers
>> and writers would love to know who they are. ;-)
>
> I know you guys are a bit slow in understanding :) I've explained it all
> before.
> I have heard (3) radio stations using these multi-tracks, only one was
> non-profit! I'm against the profiting, especially with radio crap in US
> and UK!
> I'm sure if Paul McCartney heard my remix of Band On The Run - song, he'd
> be overwhelmed with thanks if I officially mixed it!! But, I would not be
> like the other jokers who remix/remaster, I'd select several people to
> gain their input on the mixes and would be compensated for their time and
> help!!
>
I'm just as sure he'd sue the pants off you, or banish you to the Mull
Of Kintyre, which is a real place that he owns, and full of the most
vicious midges in the World. They *love* Americans, they taste *so*
good. :-)

So where *did* you steal the multitracks from? Especially the 6 track
one that came out of a studio that only had a 4 track recorder. If you
used the Multitrack Master website, those ripped off tracks even sound
bad on laptop speakers.

> I posted the latest version, because I was thrilled with the ability to
> "stretch" audio!! I'm sure if I asked here how to do it, people would just
> scratch their heads, even those high-class Adobe Audition ones!!
>
Nah, we all just use the handy tool provided in any reasonably good DAW,
or buy a plugin. It's very handy for lining up the beat where the bass
player or the drummer's a bit lax. The effect has been round for at
least 20 years, since before the days of CoolEdit 96, as has the ability
to change the pitch without altering the duration. Now, that one, you
can have *real* fun with, as well as saving an otherwise excellent take
with the odd fluffed note in it. ;-)

> So, you prefer the "band" approve your work, rather than someone who knows
> decent sound quality? Let's face it, music artists strum guitars and sing
> the blues because they lack any other talent!! Actually, very interesting,
> as I discovered, once the fame is gone, suicide possibilities become
> great!!
>
Musicians (Or, more exactly, their Significant Others and the audience)
know *exactly* how they want to sound, IME. Conductors know exactly how
the orchestra should sound. I'd also be wary of dissing musicians, some
of them have very nasty friends...

I've even known people buy a CD I've produced *after* they heard the
accordion band, and trust me, I recorded them with earplugs in, hidden
by a pair of switched off headphones. They sounded a lot better on the
monitors after a few tweaks. ;-)

> Anyway, maybe one day, when you're not shy, you'll post some of your own
> work for me to enjoy!
>
I have, and it's not hard to find. Of course, you'd not like it as it's
just a good choir singing some religious stuff the soloist wrote, with a
piano accompaniment. No drums, no distorted guitars, no massive 3kHz
peak, no compression, just a good solid stereo image that lets you
imagine you're in the room, as long as you use good reproduction
equipment and close your eyes.

There's also a rather good recording I made of an orchestra playing in
Rouen cathedral floating round somewhere. Now that's got *real* bass,
down to a 32 foot pedal on the organ. Shakes the room, it does, with a
decent subwoofer. Now that one really did take very careful microphone
positioning and excellent playing and conducting, as the orchestra were
about 50 yards away from the organ.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Gareth Magennis]

"JackA" wrote in message
...

I typically mix using headphones, but this time I used speakers!! I like
stereo, not crude monophonic sounding mixes. I'm still not thrilled with the
mix, but it's a WIP, Work In Progress. I added a cute opening, but, the one
thing I'm really excited about was finding a "Paulstretch" utility, [in
Audacity] that I've been looking for and it was right under my nose!! You
might notice it on the ending, I "stretched" the guitar so it fades
longer!!...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/helenwheels-r5.mp3

Jack






Trouble is your mix sounds really harsh and cold.

You might want to consider reducing your frequencies around 3.15k for
starters, particularly on the vocals.
They sound a bit like a lemon tastes when you bite into a whole one.
Not pleasant.

But there's another really nasty vocal peak you have below that, and I have
no intention of spending time finding out where exactly that is.
That's your job.



Gareth.

[JackA]

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 7:48:48 PM UTC-4, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> "JackA" wrote in message
> ...
>
> I typically mix using headphones, but this time I used speakers!! I like
> stereo, not crude monophonic sounding mixes. I'm still not thrilled with the
> mix, but it's a WIP, Work In Progress. I added a cute opening, but, the one
> thing I'm really excited about was finding a "Paulstretch" utility, [in
> Audacity] that I've been looking for and it was right under my nose!! You
> might notice it on the ending, I "stretched" the guitar so it fades
> longer!!...
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/helenwheels-r5.mp3
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Trouble is your mix sounds really harsh and cold.
>
> You might want to consider reducing your frequencies around 3.15k for
> starters, particularly on the vocals.
> They sound a bit like a lemon tastes when you bite into a whole one.
> Not pleasant.
>
> But there's another really nasty vocal peak you have below that, and I have
> no intention of spending time finding out where exactly that is.
> That's your job.
>
>
>
> Gareth.

Gareth, let's face facts, this song as a hit sounded harsh. It was mixed to be loud, not pleasantly made for audiophiles. But, really, I do appreciate your feedback. I guess you'll tell me this Band On The Run sounds ill, too? If so, then maybe you can explain why I received some nice compliments (Music/Radio newsletter) of over it and even a HD Radio station wanted a copy of the new mix...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/bandrun-rmx.mp3

If Paul McCartney wants his music to remain sounding like crap, mixed by stupid people at Abbey Road or wherever, more power to him!

Jack

[Gareth Magennis]

"JackA" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 7:48:48 PM UTC-4, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> "JackA" wrote in message
> ...
>
> I typically mix using headphones, but this time I used speakers!! I like
> stereo, not crude monophonic sounding mixes. I'm still not thrilled with
> the
> mix, but it's a WIP, Work In Progress. I added a cute opening, but, the
> one
> thing I'm really excited about was finding a "Paulstretch" utility, [in
> Audacity] that I've been looking for and it was right under my nose!! You
> might notice it on the ending, I "stretched" the guitar so it fades
> longer!!...
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/helenwheels-r5.mp3
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Trouble is your mix sounds really harsh and cold.
>
> You might want to consider reducing your frequencies around 3.15k for
> starters, particularly on the vocals.
> They sound a bit like a lemon tastes when you bite into a whole one.
> Not pleasant.
>
> But there's another really nasty vocal peak you have below that, and I
> have
> no intention of spending time finding out where exactly that is.
> That's your job.
>
>
>
> Gareth.

Gareth, let's face facts, this song as a hit sounded harsh. It was mixed to
be loud, not pleasantly made for audiophiles. But, really, I do appreciate
your feedback. I guess you'll tell me this Band On The Run sounds ill, too?
If so, then maybe you can explain why I received some nice compliments
(Music/Radio newsletter) of over it and even a HD Radio station wanted a
copy of the new mix...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/bandrun-rmx.mp3

If Paul McCartney wants his music to remain sounding like crap, mixed by
stupid people at Abbey Road or wherever, more power to him!

Jack





Jack, face facts. If you are remixing something that sounds crap, you can
take steps to make it sound a lot better.
You can do that with a good pair of ears and the judicious use of EQ.

Clearly you have used neither here, because it sounds even worse than the
original.


Gareth.

[JackA]

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 8:02:59 PM UTC-4, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> "JackA" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 7:48:48 PM UTC-4, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> > "JackA" wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > I typically mix using headphones, but this time I used speakers!! I like
> > stereo, not crude monophonic sounding mixes. I'm still not thrilled with
> > the
> > mix, but it's a WIP, Work In Progress. I added a cute opening, but, the
> > one
> > thing I'm really excited about was finding a "Paulstretch" utility, [in
> > Audacity] that I've been looking for and it was right under my nose!! You
> > might notice it on the ending, I "stretched" the guitar so it fades
> > longer!!...
> >
> > http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/helenwheels-r5.mp3
> >
> > Jack
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Trouble is your mix sounds really harsh and cold.
> >
> > You might want to consider reducing your frequencies around 3.15k for
> > starters, particularly on the vocals.
> > They sound a bit like a lemon tastes when you bite into a whole one.
> > Not pleasant.
> >
> > But there's another really nasty vocal peak you have below that, and I
> > have
> > no intention of spending time finding out where exactly that is.
> > That's your job.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gareth.
>
> Gareth, let's face facts, this song as a hit sounded harsh. It was mixed to
> be loud, not pleasantly made for audiophiles. But, really, I do appreciate
> your feedback. I guess you'll tell me this Band On The Run sounds ill, too?
> If so, then maybe you can explain why I received some nice compliments
> (Music/Radio newsletter) of over it and even a HD Radio station wanted a
> copy of the new mix...
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/bandrun-rmx.mp3
>
> If Paul McCartney wants his music to remain sounding like crap, mixed by
> stupid people at Abbey Road or wherever, more power to him!
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
>
> Jack, face facts. If you are remixing something that sounds crap, you can
> take steps to make it sound a lot better.
> You can do that with a good pair of ears and the judicious use of EQ.
>
> Clearly you have used neither here, because it sounds even worse than the
> original.
>
>
> Gareth.

Gareth, thanks. Negative and/or Positive comments are always welcome. And, you are correct, the multi-tracks sound like crap. Why I loved the songs, but cringed at the sound quality. Remember, when, I think Abbey Road, jokingly left his song loose with too much bass, what song was it, I forget, for another day.

Now, did his original Maybe I'm Amazed have his non lyrical vocals throughout it?...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/amazed-rm.mp3

Jack

[John Williamson]

On 12/03/2015 20:13, JackA wrote:
> On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 3:34:10 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 12/03/2015 15:50, JackA wrote:
>>>> So, where *did* you steal them from?
>>>
>>> First off, sorry about the comments from the uncivilized peasants here. I do not "steal". I found them and that is that.
>>>
>> If you didn't pay a licence fee for the use of them, you've stolen them.
>
> -- You post one of your mixes here and people save it. Is that stealing? Certainly not, you offered them to the public!!
>
I posted a free link to mp3 files of a CD I engineered with the consent
of the performers and the composer.

That's not the same as posting a link to stuff that's only been released
commercially without getting the consent of the performers, composers
and publishers.

>> If you did pay a licence fee, you were ripped off.
>
> -- I know you don't follow the audio quality of Pop music, so I am forgiving!

I do follow modern pop music, and it's a mixed bag of good and bad, as
it's always been.

>>
>>>> Oh, dearie me. You don't even know what a fluffed note is. ;-)
>>>
>>> Well, you, sir, walk around here bragging about your big organ!! :-)
>>>
>> It's not mine, but it *is* rather large. ;-)
>
> -- Time to share!! :-)
>
If you insist... ;-)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/monceau/3197334119/

The picture was taken from where the conductor was standing while I was
recording the Saint Saens Symphony number 9.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 9:52:35 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 12/03/2015 20:13, JackA wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 3:34:10 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 12/03/2015 15:50, JackA wrote:
> >>>> So, where *did* you steal them from?
> >>>
> >>> First off, sorry about the comments from the uncivilized peasants here. I do not "steal". I found them and that is that.
> >>>
> >> If you didn't pay a licence fee for the use of them, you've stolen them.
> >
> > -- You post one of your mixes here and people save it. Is that stealing? Certainly not, you offered them to the public!!
> >
> I posted a free link to mp3 files of a CD I engineered with the consent
> of the performers and the composer.
>
> That's not the same as posting a link to stuff that's only been released
> commercially without getting the consent of the performers, composers
> and publishers.
>
> >> If you did pay a licence fee, you were ripped off.
> >
> > -- I know you don't follow the audio quality of Pop music, so I am forgiving!
>
> I do follow modern pop music, and it's a mixed bag of good and bad, as
> it's always been.

Very true. I could stomach the overdubbing, and even The Beach Boys not mentioning a word about some Wrecking Crew (playing their music), but in the '80's when lots of music sounded synthesized (drum machines, etc.), I lost interest!

>
> >>
> >>>> Oh, dearie me. You don't even know what a fluffed note is. ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Well, you, sir, walk around here bragging about your big organ!! :-)
> >>>
> >> It's not mine, but it *is* rather large. ;-)
> >
> > -- Time to share!! :-)
> >
> If you insist... ;-)
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/monceau/3197334119/
>
> The picture was taken from where the conductor was standing while I was
> recording the Saint Saens Symphony number 9.

John, THAT does look impressive!!!
Now, the sound? :-)

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

[John Williamson]

On 13/03/2015 11:53, JackA wrote:
> On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 9:52:35 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> The picture was taken from where the conductor was standing while I was
>> recording the Saint Saens Symphony number 9.
>
> John, THAT does look impressive!!!
> Now, the sound? :-)
>
Sorry, the link was removed in accord with my agreement with the
orchestra and conductor after they'd checked it fr timing and balance.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>
>Mainly, what I have is condensed tracks, premixed tracks to minimize file size. But, someone here mentions 24 tracks....

Starting around 1970 or so, 2" 24-track pretty much became the standard format
for just about all professional multitrack production, and it stayed that way
well into the 1990s.

So if you were to pick a pop recording out of the archives, you would probably
find it on a 24-track tape.

Having only 24 tracks is kind of limiting, so it was not unusual to see people
using the same track for two different things. For example, it might have
one instrument from the beginning to a certain point, but then a second
instrument would be on it.

It also was not unusual for people to ping-pong tracks.... record all the
drums with aggressive spotmiking, then process the drum tracks and mix them
down to two tracks, then wipe the original tracks so that space on the tape
could be used for something else.

Some really masochistic people would synchronized two 24-track machines,
first with pilot tone on one track of each and then later with timecode.
This gave you 46 tracks if you were very careful about using them and didn't
split stereo pairs between the two machines or anything. So you will
occasionally pull a tape out of the closet and find it's actually two tapes.

The studio where I worked in the early seventies had a 24-track room with
two machines, but also had a smaller 8-track B-studio (as well as a C-room
which was actually a tiny dubbing stage with a 5-foot projection screen,
although it got used for occasional voice recording and the like.)
>https://moggfiles.wordpress.com/
>
>Just sad to see how record companies shaft you, the consumer.
Starting around 1970 or so, 2" 24-track pretty much became the standard format
for just about all professional multitrack production, and it stayed that way
well into the 1990s.

So if you were to pick a pop recording out of the archives, you would probably
find it on a 24-track tape.

Having only 24 tracks is kind of limiting, so it was not unusual to see people
using the same track for two different things. For example, it might have
one instrument from the beginning to a certain point, but then a second
instrument would be on it.

It also was not unusual for people to ping-pong tracks.... record all the
drums with aggressive spotmiking, then process the drum tracks and mix them
down to two tracks, then wipe the original tracks so that space on the tape
could be used for something else.

Some really masochistic people would synchronized two 24-track machines,
first with pilot tone on one track of each and then later with timecode.
This gave you 46 tracks if you were very careful about using them and didn't
split stereo pairs between the two machines or anything. So you will
occasionally pull a tape out of the closet and find it's actually two tapes.

The studio where I worked in the early seventies had a 24-track room with
two machines, but also had a smaller 8-track B-studio (as well as a C-room
which was actually a tiny dubbing stage with a 5-foot projection screen,
although it got used for occasional voice recording and the like). This
was pretty typical of a big-city studio in that era.
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 8:54:07 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >
> >Mainly, what I have is condensed tracks, premixed tracks to minimize file size. But, someone here mentions 24 tracks....
>
> Starting around 1970 or so, 2" 24-track pretty much became the standard format
> for just about all professional multitrack production, and it stayed that way
> well into the 1990s.
>
> So if you were to pick a pop recording out of the archives, you would probably
> find it on a 24-track tape.
>
> Having only 24 tracks is kind of limiting, so it was not unusual to see people
> using the same track for two different things. For example, it might have
> one instrument from the beginning to a certain point, but then a second
> instrument would be on it.
>
> It also was not unusual for people to ping-pong tracks.... record all the
> drums with aggressive spotmiking, then process the drum tracks and mix them
> down to two tracks, then wipe the original tracks so that space on the tape
> could be used for something else.
>
> Some really masochistic people would synchronized two 24-track machines,
> first with pilot tone on one track of each and then later with timecode.
> This gave you 46 tracks if you were very careful about using them and didn't
> split stereo pairs between the two machines or anything. So you will
> occasionally pull a tape out of the closet and find it's actually two tapes.
>
> The studio where I worked in the early seventies had a 24-track room with
> two machines, but also had a smaller 8-track B-studio (as well as a C-room
> which was actually a tiny dubbing stage with a 5-foot projection screen,
> although it got used for occasional voice recording and the like.)
> >https://moggfiles.wordpress.com/
> >
> >Just sad to see how record companies shaft you, the consumer.
> Starting around 1970 or so, 2" 24-track pretty much became the standard format
> for just about all professional multitrack production, and it stayed that way
> well into the 1990s.
>
> So if you were to pick a pop recording out of the archives, you would probably
> find it on a 24-track tape.
>
> Having only 24 tracks is kind of limiting, so it was not unusual to see people
> using the same track for two different things. For example, it might have
> one instrument from the beginning to a certain point, but then a second
> instrument would be on it.
>
> It also was not unusual for people to ping-pong tracks.... record all the
> drums with aggressive spotmiking, then process the drum tracks and mix them
> down to two tracks, then wipe the original tracks so that space on the tape
> could be used for something else.
>
> Some really masochistic people would synchronized two 24-track machines,
> first with pilot tone on one track of each and then later with timecode.
> This gave you 46 tracks if you were very careful about using them and didn't
> split stereo pairs between the two machines or anything. So you will
> occasionally pull a tape out of the closet and find it's actually two tapes.
>
> The studio where I worked in the early seventies had a 24-track room with
> two machines, but also had a smaller 8-track B-studio (as well as a C-room
> which was actually a tiny dubbing stage with a 5-foot projection screen,
> although it got used for occasional voice recording and the like). This
> was pretty typical of a big-city studio in that era.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott, thanks, I mean that!

My only beef is, I should be able to find some really decent engineer, with talented musicians and singers, and with a mere two track tape recorder, produce some impressive recordings. Yes, Paul McCartney returned from the UK to US, because the UK only had 16 track recording technology during his Band On The Run album, where the US had 24 tracks.

Not sure if it's the tape track width that made a difference, but lots of 2-3 track recording sound better than these overwhelming amount of tape track recorders.

Early on, they recorded on two track (35mm film), maybe the increased speed lessened the amount of tape hiss noise for greater dynamics. But, it proved, society, in general, was happy with current tape recording technology and didn't want to pay more for superior sound quality. Maybe even 'live' recordings, but that cost money paying musicians and/or singers Take after Take.


Magnetic recording Tape noise even caused some to record directly to disc. Not sure I ever heard one of these disc, but worth perusing.

Many tracks allowed for experimentation, by adding tracks (vocals and/or music) that were never used in the final mixed recording. When I heard Gold Dust Woman, Fleetwood Mac, in its early stage, sounded very impressive in dynamics. But, then the added echo to "her" vocals, and, as far as I'm concerned, destroyed a fine recording. Lots of songs are probably like this, they wanted a more dense sound than pure sound.

Audiophile recordings/issues began popping up due to the ability to add tracks without adding [more] tape noise, as with staged recordings where noise just accumulated. Some even used noise reduction when combining tapes.

And, these numerous amount of tape tracks is what caused decent stereo mixes from the '60's to turn near monophonic. But, I'm sure people like Alan Parsons who was above others, produced some wild stereo mixes. That's where and why I claim, anyone can mix, it requires little education, but having the ability to impress others with mixing is what some admire.

Jack

[hank alrich]

John Williamson > wrote:

> On 13/03/2015 11:53, JackA wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 9:52:35 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> The picture was taken from where the conductor was standing while I was
> >> recording the Saint Saens Symphony number 9.
> >
> > John, THAT does look impressive!!!
> > Now, the sound? :-)
> >
> Sorry, the link was removed in accord with my agreement with the
> orchestra and conductor after they'd checked it fr timing and balance.

Prevents FOPU's - Failures of Professional Understanding

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

[[email protected]]

>
> Not sure if it's the tape track width that made a difference, but lots of 2-3 track recording sound better than these overwhelming amount of tape track recorders.
>
>


well there is an interesting technical question...

lets say we have 1/4" width tape..

which of the two cases produces a better SNR..
assume perfect electronics and the same tape speed
the only noise is from the tape itself

case 1) two sound sources mixed in the desk and recorded on one full width 1/4" track of the tape

case 2) two sources each recorded on their own 1/8" track and then mixed together at playback.

I'm going to guess that the intuative answer that case 1 is better is wrong and that both cases are both actually about equal. In other words I'm going to guess that there is no SNR penelaty to splitting a tape into multiple tracks.

Why?

The noise level is the same in both cases. The signal level is also the same becasue in case 1 you need to turn the record level down to accomidate TWO combined sound sources vs 1. So even though you may have more head room in case 1, you also need more headroom.

I have no experience with multitack tape machines (more than 2). What say you experienced guys?

I do know this for a fact, the azimuth setting is more critical with wider tracks.

Mark

[JackA]

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 3:19:39 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> >
> > Not sure if it's the tape track width that made a difference, but lots of 2-3 track recording sound better than these overwhelming amount of tape track recorders.
> >
> >
>
>
> well there is an interesting technical question...
>
> lets say we have 1/4" width tape..
>
> which of the two cases produces a better SNR..
> assume perfect electronics and the same tape speed
> the only noise is from the tape itself
>
> case 1) two sound sources mixed in the desk and recorded on one full width 1/4" track of the tape
>
> case 2) two sources each recorded on their own 1/8" track and then mixed together at playback.
>
> I'm going to guess that the intuative answer that case 1 is better is wrong and that both cases are both actually about equal. In other words I'm going to guess that there is no SNR penelaty to splitting a tape into multiple tracks.
>
> Why?
>
> The noise level is the same in both cases. The signal level is also the same becasue in case 1 you need to turn the record level down to accomidate TWO combined sound sources vs 1. So even though you may have more head room in case 1, you also need more headroom.
>
> I have no experience with multitack tape machines (more than 2). What say you experienced guys?
>
> I do know this for a fact, the azimuth setting is more critical with wider tracks.
>
> Mark

Mark, interesting. I think like this - at 20,000 Hz you give it one-thousandth the real estate as you give 20 Hz. for reproduction. Hence, just using WIDER tape, ex: 1/2" vs 1/4" at the same tape speed should yield less noise.. Also, doubling the speed gives 20,000 Hz double the real estate for reproduction.

Some claim at 30 IPS low frequency problems surface.

But, it is pretty amazing with the fidelity of cassettes and metal tape (ex), moving at 1-7/8 Inch Per Second. I'm guessing head gapping and alloys improved over the years. Maybe even greater control over biasing may have improved, too.

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

Guys, you can just look this stuff up in the Audio Cyclopedia or someplace.

When you double the track width, you gain 3dB S/N. (You double signal and
you double noise, but the signal is correlated and the noise is not.)

Now, it's true that when you try and put a lot of tracks on a tape, the
guard bands start turning into a substantial amount of the tape area since
you can't really make those much smaller.

And it's true that 2" 16-track sounded a little quieter than 2" 24-tracks.
Still, lots of folks used 24-track anyway because of the interchangeability.
You could walk into any larger studio and hand the man a tape and he could
put it on the machine. It was the Pro Tools of its era.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 4:31:06 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Guys, you can just look this stuff up in the Audio Cyclopedia or someplace.
>
> When you double the track width, you gain 3dB S/N. (You double signal and
> you double noise, but the signal is correlated and the noise is not.)
>
> Now, it's true that when you try and put a lot of tracks on a tape, the
> guard bands start turning into a substantial amount of the tape area since
> you can't really make those much smaller.
>
> And it's true that 2" 16-track sounded a little quieter than 2" 24-tracks.
> Still, lots of folks used 24-track anyway because of the interchangeability.
> You could walk into any larger studio and hand the man a tape and he could
> put it on the machine. It was the Pro Tools of its era.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott, thanks!

I'm guessing particle uniformity on tape makes a difference. The Sony Metal tape I used had uniformly sized ferrous particles and were ideally arranged to yield a dense pack.

Jack

[JackA]

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 5:05:57 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 4:31:06 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > Guys, you can just look this stuff up in the Audio Cyclopedia or someplace.
> >
> > When you double the track width, you gain 3dB S/N. (You double signal and
> > you double noise, but the signal is correlated and the noise is not.)
> >
> > Now, it's true that when you try and put a lot of tracks on a tape, the
> > guard bands start turning into a substantial amount of the tape area since
> > you can't really make those much smaller.
> >
> > And it's true that 2" 16-track sounded a little quieter than 2" 24-tracks.
> > Still, lots of folks used 24-track anyway because of the interchangeability.
> > You could walk into any larger studio and hand the man a tape and he could
> > put it on the machine. It was the Pro Tools of its era.
> > --scott
> > --
> > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
> Scott, thanks!
>
> I'm guessing particle uniformity on tape makes a difference. The Sony Metal tape I used had uniformly sized ferrous particles and were ideally arranged to yield a dense pack.
>
> Jack

SEEMS ferrous particles make a difference...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tape_hiss

[[email protected]]

JackA:

I haven't been on a ferrous wheel in... how long?

:P

[JackA]

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 7:47:13 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA:
>
> I haven't been on a ferrous wheel in... how long?
>
> :P

But maybe you saw Ferrous Bueller's Day Off

Jack :)

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
But maybe you saw Ferrous Bueller's Day Off

Jack :) "


:D

The dummy in bed scene was priceless!

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
JackA > wrote:
> Early on, they recorded on two track (35mm film), maybe the increased
> speed lessened the amount of tape hiss noise for greater dynamics.

Magnetic film has the problem of getting decent head contact due to it
being far less flexible than tape.

However, multi-track in film was possible before multi-track tape arrived
by locking machines together - as you had to do between picture and sound.

Not quite sure if using sep mag for recording audio other than for films
was ever common, though.

--
*If you can't see my mirrors, I'm doing my hair*

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

[JackA]

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 8:55:37 PM UTC-4, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article >,
> JackA > wrote:
> > Early on, they recorded on two track (35mm film), maybe the increased
> > speed lessened the amount of tape hiss noise for greater dynamics.
>
> Magnetic film has the problem of getting decent head contact due to it
> being far less flexible than tape.
>
> However, multi-track in film was possible before multi-track tape arrived
> by locking machines together - as you had to do between picture and sound..
>
> Not quite sure if using sep mag for recording audio other than for films
> was ever common, though.

Dave, thanks for the info!! Some used two capstans, I guess, for better tape tension control. Not familiar with what movie film audio was capable of. Some mentioned an optical audio track (early on); maybe developed with the (video) film!! One neat thing was hearing Glenn Miller's Chattanooga Choo Choo, from 35mm film audio, 1941, I guess it had a least two tracks and you could make some stereo from it! I think this is optical audio...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/choochoo-s2.mp3

Jack

>
> --
> *If you can't see my mirrors, I'm doing my hair*
>
> Dave Plowman London SW
> To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[geoff]

On 14/03/2015 5:15 a.m., JackA wrote:

>
> Scott, thanks, I mean that!
>
> My only beef is, I should be able to find some really decent
> engineer, with talented musicians and singers, and with a mere two
> track tape recorder, produce some impressive recordings. Yes, Paul
> McCartney returned from the UK to US, because the UK only had 16
> track recording technology during his Band On The Run album, where
> the US had 24 tracks.

Um, Nigeria wasn't it ?

geoff

[geoff]

On 14/03/2015 1:34 p.m., JackA wrote:
> On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 7:47:13 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>> JackA:
>>
>> I haven't been on a ferrous wheel in... how long?
>>
>> :P
>
> But maybe you saw Ferrous Bueller's Day Off
>
> Jack :)
>


All this Audio-For-Rank-Beginners stuff is really not ferr us ...

geoff

[JackA]

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 8:37:01 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
> But maybe you saw Ferrous Bueller's Day Off
>
> Jack :) "
>
>
> :D
>
> The dummy in bed scene was priceless!

That was no dummy, that was geoff!


Jack Amateur :)

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

geoff wrote:
> On 14/03/2015 5:15 a.m., JackA wrote:
>
>>
>> Scott, thanks, I mean that!
>>
>> My only beef is, I should be able to find some really decent
>> engineer, with talented musicians and singers, and with a mere two
>> track tape recorder, produce some impressive recordings. Yes, Paul
>> McCartney returned from the UK to US, because the UK only had 16
>> track recording technology during his Band On The Run album, where
>> the US had 24 tracks.
>
> Um, Nigeria wasn't it ?
>
> geoff

"Band On The Run"? Yep.

The others not so much.

--
Les Cargill

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
JackA > wrote:
> > Magnetic film has the problem of getting decent head contact due to it
> > being far less flexible than tape.
> >
> > However, multi-track in film was possible before multi-track tape
> > arrived by locking machines together - as you had to do between
> > picture and sound.
> >
> > Not quite sure if using sep mag for recording audio other than for
> > films was ever common, though.

> Dave, thanks for the info!! Some used two capstans, I guess, for better
> tape tension control.

As do some tape recorders.

> Not familiar with what movie film audio was
> capable of.

Like for like, sepmag isn't as good as tape.

> Some mentioned an optical audio track (early on); maybe
> developed with the (video) film!

Pretty well all films are comopt. Sepmag wears out much quicker than the
picture side so was only ever used in high end cinemas. Dolby optical got
round the problems of the analogue optical sound.

> ! One neat thing was hearing Glenn
> Miller's Chattanooga Choo Choo, from 35mm film audio, 1941, I guess it
> had a least two tracks and you could make some stereo from it! I think
> this is optical audio...

Likely was in '41.

--
*How do they get the deer to cross at that yellow road sign?

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:
>In article >,
> JackA > wrote:
>> Early on, they recorded on two track (35mm film), maybe the increased
>> speed lessened the amount of tape hiss noise for greater dynamics.
>
>Magnetic film has the problem of getting decent head contact due to it
>being far less flexible than tape.
>
>However, multi-track in film was possible before multi-track tape arrived
>by locking machines together - as you had to do between picture and sound.
>
>Not quite sure if using sep mag for recording audio other than for films
>was ever common, though.

The only real magfilm use for standalone audio was done by Bob Fine, who
did recordings for Command, Mercury, and Everest.

35mm magfilm runs only marginally faster than 15 ips... the advantages are
primarily wider tracks for slightly lower noise, and no print-through.
You get abut 3dB better S/N from 3-track 35mm compared with 3-track 1/2".

The disadvantage is a persistent 96 Hz flutter in spite of the best efforts
of the Davis loop to eliminate the sprocket flutter.

It was briefly popular in the early sixties as a result of Bob Fine's
promotion and his excellent recording truck, but it fell out of favor very
quickly because it really is cumbersome and offers little.

That said... if you want to make an album on 35mm magfilm, I have a couple
racks of operating dubbers that are clean and calibrated, including the old
style 3-track heads, in the projection booth here.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>Dave, thanks for the info!! Some used two capstans, I guess, for better tap=
>e tension control. Not familiar with what movie film audio was capable of. =
>Some mentioned an optical audio track (early on); maybe developed with the =
>(video) film!! One neat thing was hearing Glenn Miller's Chattanooga Choo C=
>hoo, from 35mm film audio, 1941, I guess it had a least two tracks and you =
>could make some stereo from it! I think this is optical audio...=20

Yes, this is the audio track from a soundie.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

>
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/helenwheels-r5.mp3
>
> Jack

Wow!! This is the greatest mix I ever heard! Who would have ever dreamt that an amateur could do something head and shoulders above ANY professional mixer? You are going to turn the industry upside down!

Actually, the mix blows and you are one of the biggest jerks to ever post on RAP. Please quit pestering us with your childish egotism. You are like a child showing mommy his big pooh-pooh. So proud of something that is irrelevant to adults. Shut up and maybe you can learn something.

John

[JackA]

On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 9:15:23 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> >
> > http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/helenwheels-r5.mp3
> >
> > Jack
>
> Wow!! This is the greatest mix I ever heard!

Why, thank you. Always nice when I please the peasants! :-)

Jack

[JackA]

On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 8:40:06 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > JackA > wrote:
> >> Early on, they recorded on two track (35mm film), maybe the increased
> >> speed lessened the amount of tape hiss noise for greater dynamics.
> >
> >Magnetic film has the problem of getting decent head contact due to it
> >being far less flexible than tape.
> >
> >However, multi-track in film was possible before multi-track tape arrived
> >by locking machines together - as you had to do between picture and sound.
> >
> >Not quite sure if using sep mag for recording audio other than for films
> >was ever common, though.
>
> The only real magfilm use for standalone audio was done by Bob Fine, who
> did recordings for Command, Mercury, and Everest.
>
> 35mm magfilm runs only marginally faster than 15 ips... the advantages are
> primarily wider tracks for slightly lower noise, and no print-through.
> You get abut 3dB better S/N from 3-track 35mm compared with 3-track 1/2".


But there was a System 120 (or 120 System) that had a speed of 120CMPS, that equates to 47+ Inches Per Second. Maybe sprockets ran 2 revolutions per inch and that's where the 96 Hz flutter came from. Maybe a totally different dog.

Personally, I say, the film recordings rivaled digital audio, but cost an arm and leg to make and just like fancy CDs, they did sell well due to higher cost.

Jack

>
> The disadvantage is a persistent 96 Hz flutter in spite of the best efforts
> of the Davis loop to eliminate the sprocket flutter.
>
> It was briefly popular in the early sixties as a result of Bob Fine's
> promotion and his excellent recording truck, but it fell out of favor very
> quickly because it really is cumbersome and offers little.
>
> That said... if you want to make an album on 35mm magfilm, I have a couple
> racks of operating dubbers that are clean and calibrated, including the old
> style 3-track heads, in the projection booth here.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>Kludge writes:
>>
>> 35mm magfilm runs only marginally faster than 15 ips... the advantages are
>> primarily wider tracks for slightly lower noise, and no print-through.
>> You get abut 3dB better S/N from 3-track 35mm compared with 3-track 1/2".
>
>But there was a System 120 (or 120 System) that had a speed of 120CMPS, that equates to 47+ Inches Per Second. Maybe sprockets ran 2 revolutions per inch and that's where the 96 Hz flutter came from. Maybe a totally different dog.

What would such a crazy thing be used for?

Normal magfilm runs 24 fps, just like 35mm motion picture film (for which it
was intended to be synchronized). There are 4 perfs per frame, therefore
96 perfs per second going over the sprockets. Every time the sprocket tooth
engages and disengages, there is a mechanical shift, and even the Davis loop
can't isolate it completely.

35mm film runs 90 feet per minute, that being about as fast as a person with
a camera that shoots 8 frames per revolution can consistently crank the handle.
That's 18 ips.

>Personally, I say, the film recordings rivaled digital audio, but cost an arm and leg to make and just like fancy CDs, they did sell well due to higher cost.

It was pretty much a marketing gimmick. The format does sound good, but then
so does 1/2" 3-track for that matter.

An audiophile group in Oregon made an organ recording in the early nineties
on 35mm magfilm. It was a curious exercise. The inability to splice anywhere
you wanted was a real pain.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> >Personally, I say, the film recordings rivaled digital audio, but cost
> >an arm and leg to make and just like fancy CDs, they did sell well due
> >to higher cost.

> It was pretty much a marketing gimmick. The format does sound good, but
> then so does 1/2" 3-track for that matter.

Experience of 35mm sepmag said the normal end results were rather inferior
to 15 ips twin track 1/4" in practice. For whatever reasons. Maybe just
the extra generations when used as intended.

> An audiophile group in Oregon made an organ recording in the early
> nineties on 35mm magfilm. It was a curious exercise. The inability to
> splice anywhere you wanted was a real pain.

Bit like editing video on tape. Especially PAL. ;-)

--
*WOULD A FLY WITHOUT WINGS BE CALLED A WALK?

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

[JackA]

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 10:32:13 AM UTC-4, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article >,
> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> > >Personally, I say, the film recordings rivaled digital audio, but cost
> > >an arm and leg to make and just like fancy CDs, they did sell well due
> > >to higher cost.
>
> > It was pretty much a marketing gimmick. The format does sound good, but
> > then so does 1/2" 3-track for that matter.
>
> Experience of 35mm sepmag said the normal end results were rather inferior
> to 15 ips twin track 1/4" in practice. For whatever reasons. Maybe just
> the extra generations when used as intended.
>
> > An audiophile group in Oregon made an organ recording in the early
> > nineties on 35mm magfilm. It was a curious exercise. The inability to
> > splice anywhere you wanted was a real pain.
>
> Bit like editing video on tape. Especially PAL. ;-)

PAL: Phase Alternate Line (good color!) - SECAM!! NTSC! Yuck!
>
> --
> *WOULD A FLY WITHOUT WINGS BE CALLED A WALK?
>
> Dave Plowman London SW
> To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
JackA > wrote:
> PAL: Phase Alternate Line

Phase Alternating Line.

--
*Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:
>In article >,
> JackA > wrote:
>> PAL: Phase Alternate Line
>
>Phase Alternating Line.

PAL actually allowed you to make a cut on any field, which was a big
improvement over SECAM.... most folks converted from SECAM to PAL
intermediate for editing for that reason.

35mm magfilm lets you cut on any quarter frame, which although it's an
improvement on 16mm where you can only cut on the frame line, still makes
it difficult to edit fiddly drum tracks.

>*Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

Did they order the large shrimp?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> PAL actually allowed you to make a cut on any field, which was a big
> improvement over SECAM.... most folks converted from SECAM to PAL
> intermediate for editing for that reason.

Not if you want a perfect edit with composite. Google PAL eight field
sequence.

--
*Sorry, I don't date outside my species.

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:
>In article >,
> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>> PAL actually allowed you to make a cut on any field, which was a big
>> improvement over SECAM.... most folks converted from SECAM to PAL
>> intermediate for editing for that reason.
>
>Not if you want a perfect edit with composite. Google PAL eight field
>sequence.

God, it's stuff like that that makes me wonder why anyone would ever do
production on video rather than film.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> >> PAL actually allowed you to make a cut on any field, which was a big
> >> improvement over SECAM.... most folks converted from SECAM to PAL
> >> intermediate for editing for that reason.
> >
> >Not if you want a perfect edit with composite. Google PAL eight field
> >sequence.

> God, it's stuff like that that makes me wonder why anyone would ever do
> production on video rather than film.
> --scott

Cost, mainly. And of course speed - you can make a prog just before the TX
time on tape and edit out any mistakes. Common with consumer etc progs
where you might get sued. ;-)

But only really suitable for multi camera studio stuff. Had to wait for
component recording for single camera video to become more viable.

--
*Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.

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

[JackA]

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 11:37:29 PM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote:
> geoff wrote:
> > On 14/03/2015 5:15 a.m., JackA wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Scott, thanks, I mean that!
> >>
> >> My only beef is, I should be able to find some really decent
> >> engineer, with talented musicians and singers, and with a mere two
> >> track tape recorder, produce some impressive recordings. Yes, Paul
> >> McCartney returned from the UK to US, because the UK only had 16
> >> track recording technology during his Band On The Run album, where
> >> the US had 24 tracks.
> >
> > Um, Nigeria wasn't it ?
> >
> > geoff
>
> "Band On The Run"? Yep.
>
> The others not so much.
>
> --
> Les Cargill

Here's No Milk Today, in Stereo, with instrumental ending. It is edited, but rounds out to a nice 2.5 minute song. It is digitally enhanced, because I felt it needed it as the material was mixed (Abbey Road) way back in 1991...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/nomilk.mp3

Jack