Why does this sound so GOOD?!?

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg

The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Randy Yates" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg

> The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
> years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?

Hollywood sound stage and crew suspected as cause. It has all the
characteristics of Janis Ians first album. I am always amazed that it is not
included in what the audiophiles bawk on about, if they knew (audio) they
should.

> Randy Yates

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[JackA]

On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 12:54:45 AM UTC-4, Randy Yates wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
>
> The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
> years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?

That does sound nice, Randy.

While at a Wal-Mart, years back, I found a "new" Glen Campbell CD album, with Bonus tracks - some of his past song remixed/remastered. The remixes made my ears puke, I think that song was included. Later, I went online and while it was difficult to find reviews of the remixes, since it was a Wal-Mart exclusive CD, some were complaining about the foul sound quality of the new album tracks.

Jack


> --
> Randy Yates
> Digital Signal Labs
> http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Randy Yates" > wrote in message
...
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
>
> The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
> years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?

I noticed this effect with some 1958 Marty Paich recordings. I also observe
some very specific placement of the various sections, not some vague wash or
"wall of sound" where you play where's the piano, or guitar or whatever.
Number two, as with having a full range of values in photography, a
well-balanced full frequency range is very satisfying, as opposed to
overemphasized bass range.

Gary Eickmeier

[geoff]

On 18/04/2015 5:07 p.m., Peter Larsen wrote:
> "Randy Yates" > skrev i en meddelelse
> ...
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
>
>> The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
>> years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?
>
> Hollywood sound stage and crew suspected as cause. It has all the
> characteristics of Janis Ians first album. I am always amazed that it is not
> included in what the audiophiles bawk on about, if they knew (audio) they
> should.

It always was. I have half-speed -mastere, or Practical Hifi (or
something) 'Supercut' version of this.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 18/04/2015 05:54, Randy Yates wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
>
> The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
> years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?
>
I take it you're referring to the original sounding good, not the
Youtube version you link to?

Anyone who thinks that Youtube sound is even slightly good needs their
hearing tested.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

geoff > writes:

> On 18/04/2015 5:07 p.m., Peter Larsen wrote:
>> "Randy Yates" > skrev i en meddelelse
>> ...
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
>>
>>> The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
>>> years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?
>>
>> Hollywood sound stage and crew suspected as cause. It has all the
>> characteristics of Janis Ians first album. I am always amazed that it is not
>> included in what the audiophiles bawk on about, if they knew (audio) they
>> should.
>
> It always was. I have half-speed -mastere, or Practical Hifi (or
> something) 'Supercut' version of this.

You mean Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs' half-speed master of the vinyl?
Cool. I used to buy those when they were available and I could afford
it; I believe I had the Al Stewart "Year of the Cat" album in a
half-speed master.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

John Williamson > writes:

> On 18/04/2015 05:54, Randy Yates wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
>>
>> The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
>> years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?
>>
> I take it you're referring to the original sounding good, not the
> Youtube version you link to?

I was referring to the overall mix and quality. I agree the audio in many youtube
posts is appalling, but not this one. Did you listen to it?

> Anyone who thinks that Youtube sound is even slightly good needs their
> hearing tested.

Count me in, because I do think this one sounds good.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[John Williamson]

On 18/04/2015 13:28, Randy Yates wrote:
> John Williamson > writes:
>
>> On 18/04/2015 05:54, Randy Yates wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
>>>
>>> The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
>>> years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?
>>>
>> I take it you're referring to the original sounding good, not the
>> Youtube version you link to?
>
> I was referring to the overall mix and quality. I agree the audio in many youtube
> posts is appalling, but not this one. Did you listen to it?
>
The mix is good, as are the performance and the original recording, but
the sound on the clip you linked to is about cassette quality. The
performance is good enough to shine through Youtube's data compression,
I'll grant you that, but I could hear compression artifacts and other
glitches even on the laptop speakers.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

John Williamson > wrote:
> On 18/04/2015 05:54, Randy Yates wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
> >
> > The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
> > years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?
> >
> I take it you're referring to the original sounding good, not the
> Youtube version you link to?
>
> Anyone who thinks that Youtube sound is even slightly good needs their
> hearing tested.

One of the aspects of a successful recording is its ability to withstand
the many kinds of damage done "downstream" of the original format. Perhaps
there should be a "Survivability Quotient" or such.

When you notice through the window that your neighbors' garage is burning
down, you don't see how dirty the window is. Your are looking *through*
the window. Hearing a decent sound on YouTube reflects listening *through*
the layers of degradation that have been added. Here's one I did in 1970.
It is a single take, live to Videotape. It seems to hold up OK. The 1/4"
mono audiotape of it sounds better, but this will have to do for now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rgLd6A0DWM&list=RD9rgLd6A0DWM#t=2

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

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

John Williamson > writes:

> On 18/04/2015 13:28, Randy Yates wrote:
>> John Williamson > writes:
>>
>>> On 18/04/2015 05:54, Randy Yates wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
>>>>
>>>> The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
>>>> years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?
>>>>
>>> I take it you're referring to the original sounding good, not the
>>> Youtube version you link to?
>>
>> I was referring to the overall mix and quality. I agree the audio in many youtube
>> posts is appalling, but not this one. Did you listen to it?
>>
> The mix is good, as are the performance and the original recording,
> but the sound on the clip you linked to is about cassette quality. The
> performance is good enough to shine through Youtube's data
> compression, I'll grant you that, but I could hear compression
> artifacts and other glitches even on the laptop speakers.

I don't categorize it as "not even slightly good."

Here is a (reportedly) flac version to compare:

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

This does sound much different, generally clearer. But it does sound a
good bit "duller" (highs equalized?) from the original version I posted.
I like it better, though.

In any case, the original version was certainly good enough to represent
the qualities which were the object of my post. Can we get past this
nit-picking and to the recording and mixing issues I'm bringing up?
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[[email protected]]

In my opinion,
Many older recording sound good because back then
the equipment WAS good enough to make good recordings
and also the arrangements and performances were excellent.

Today the equipment has too many bells and whistles
and less emphasis is placed on the material.


The main reason is that most recordings today
Are over processed, specifically dynamic range is overly
Compressed.

Mark
..
..

[[email protected]]

5:21 wrote
"In my opinion...

Today the equipment has too many bells and whistles
and less emphasis is placed on the material. "

More opportunities to EFF it up in post.

"The main reason is that most recordings today
Are over processed, specifically dynamic range is overly
Compressed.

Mark "

Your "opinion"??? What you stated were facts!

The key is determining who to blame - and to explain to
them that what those clients are demanding doesn't work.

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> The key is determining who to blame - and to explain to
> them that what those clients are demanding doesn't work.

Yeah, get right on that. Blame. Explain. Complain. How that working
out for you?

[[email protected]]

STOP DERAILING THE CONVERSATION WITH
YOUR NAME-CALLING AND GENERAL NASTINESS!!


WHAT DID I EVER DO TO YOU TO DESERVE THIS
TREATMENT?


Like I previously said, I pray in JESUS CHRIST'S
name that you get back, TEN TIMES OVER, the CRAP
you've dished out on me over the last three years,
and see how YOU like it!


Because I tracked your usenet activity back a decade,
and I found ZERO instances of anyone berating you
the way you have done me, despite your statements
to the contrary.

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> STOP DERAILING THE CONVERSATION WITH
> YOUR NAME-CALLING AND GENERAL NASTINESS!!
>
>
> WHAT DID I EVER DO TO YOU TO DESERVE THIS
> TREATMENT?
>
>
> Like I previously said, I pray in JESUS CHRIST'S
> name that you get back, TEN TIMES OVER, the CRAP
> you've dished out on me over the last three years,
> and see how YOU like it!
>
>
> Because I tracked your usenet activity back a decade,
> and I found ZERO instances of anyone berating you
> the way you have done me, despite your statements
> to the contrary.

So, how's that working out for you?

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"None" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > STOP DERAILING THE CONVERSATION WITH
> > YOUR NAME-CALLING AND GENERAL NASTINESS!!
> >
> >
> > WHAT DID I EVER DO TO YOU TO DESERVE THIS
> > TREATMENT?
> >
> >
> > Like I previously said, I pray in JESUS CHRIST'S
> > name that you get back, TEN TIMES OVER, the CRAP
> > you've dished out on me over the last three years,
> > and see how YOU like it!
> >
> >
> > Because I tracked your usenet activity back a decade,
> > and I found ZERO instances of anyone berating you
> > the way you have done me, despite your statements
> > to the contrary.
>
> So, how's that working out for you?


I, for one, am saddened to see this thread go the way of so many others.

Here's a request: If you have a problem with anything not relevant to the
intent of the Original Poster, THIS is NOT the place to tell us what you
think to the OP meant. Please address the the Original Topic.

Can anyone suggest a group where those with more to say might vent?

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

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

writes:

> In my opinion,
> Many older recording sound good because back then
> the equipment WAS good enough to make good recordings
> and also the arrangements and performances were excellent.
>
> Today the equipment has too many bells and whistles
> and less emphasis is placed on the material.
>
>
> The main reason is that most recordings today
> Are over processed, specifically dynamic range is overly
> Compressed.

I suspect you are very close, if not right on, the mark, Mark!
Especially the arrangements/performances. Also the dynamic
range/compression observation sounds about right. Look at what we've
lost in the process. Sad.

There's also the economics. Why is it that in 1968 recording labels
could afford a small orchestra for a recording such as this but today
it's prohibitively expensive?
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Luxey]

Tere's no FLAC on youtube, everything on youtube is recompressed to their format.
It's all up to source material one is uploading, because it all ends as some
128kbps AAC.

BTW, maybe I've mentioned that already, I found it's te best option to let
Youtube take care of compression, ie. make the clips and upload them with WAV sound. Seams YT compressors are bit better than what average software can offer and even then, whatever you do, it will be recompressed again, anyway, ... so ..
leave it losless (wav) and let YT do the thing.

[[email protected]]

Luxey:


Near as I can tell YouTube may perform data compression(for
bandwidth purposes) but not dynamic.


Will this confusion of DATA compression with DYNAMIC compression
ever end??

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> Luxey:
> Near as I can tell YouTube may perform data compression (for
> bandwidth purposes) but not dynamic.
>
> Will this confusion of DATA compression with DYNAMIC compression
> ever end??

Who's confused (other than you)?

[[email protected]]

> wrote in message
...
- show quoted text -
Who's confused (other than you)? "


I said STAY OUT!!! STOP POLLUTING THE THREAD
WITH YOUR NEGATIVITY. JESUS melt and remake what's left
of your heart!

[None]

<thekma @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> ...
> - show quoted text -
> Who's confused (other than you)? "
>
>
> I said STAY OUT!!! STOP POLLUTING THE THREAD
> WITH YOUR NEGATIVITY. JESUS melt and remake what's left
> of your heart!

Lighten up, Francis.

[[email protected]]

DEVIL BEGONE FROM N's BRAIN!

JESUS, REVEAL N's TRUE IDENTITY!!

[None]

<thekma @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> DEVIL BEGONE FROM N's BRAIN!
>
> JESUS, REVEAL N's TRUE IDENTITY!!

Lighten up, Pope Francis.

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> DEVIL BEGONE FROM N's BRAIN!
>
> JESUS, REVEAL N's TRUE IDENTITY!!

My name is Nomen Nescio. Do always scream when you pray to Devil and
Jesus?

[[email protected]]

HOLY GHOST, allow words only of encouragement,
guidance, and positivity to flow from N's lips!!

If YOU are for me, then no one of this Earth can
be against me!! Bend every knee, shatter all
strongholds and barriers to understanding.

And save ME from falling into the same trap
of mean-spiritedness! Amen!

[geoff]

On 19/04/2015 7:42 a.m., Randy Yates wrote:

>
> In any case, the original version was certainly good enough to represent
> the qualities which were the object of my post. Can we get past this
> nit-picking and to the recording and mixing issues I'm bringing up?
>

A good simple clear recording without clutter. A good wide frequency
range, which is just as well otherwise the acoustic bass would probably
not come through much at all.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 19/04/2015 03:27, wrote:
> HOLY GHOST, allow words only of encouragement,
> guidance, and positivity to flow from N's lips!!
>
> If YOU are for me, then no one of this Earth can
> be against me!! Bend every knee, shatter all
> strongholds and barriers to understanding.
>
> And save ME from falling into the same trap
> of mean-spiritedness! Amen!
>
You could always try refraining from posting your usual completely
nonsensical rubbish, then nobody would need to contradict it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "You could always try refraining
from posting your usual completely nonsensical rubbish,
then nobody would need to contradict it. "


Until you cite EXAMPLES of my *alleged* rubbish, I
stand vindicated.

I.E.: "Well Kmanrocks, your previous blaming the
loudness war on mastering engineers was nonsense,
but at least now you acknowledge one correct source
for it."

Like that! Is that so difficult to do? Instead of just
broadly brush-stroking my contributions as "rubbish"
or branding me a troll or other nasty names. Help
a brother! It'll make you feel better too, instead
of bitter. ;)

[[email protected]]

Nomen Nescio is simply latin for "name unknown".

Well, until Nomen reveals his true identity on here,
as he has mine without authorization, I suggest
we all give him the silent treatment until he changes
his attitude and tone toward others on here.

The same goes for anyone who engages him
or echoes his behavior.

I've already prayed for him - both on here and in
my heart, so it's now up to God.

[geoff]

On 19/04/2015 10:19 p.m., wrote:
> Nomen Nescio is simply latin for "name unknown".
>
> Well, until Nomen reveals his true identity on here,
> as he has mine without authorization, I suggest
> we all give him the silent treatment until he changes
> his attitude and tone toward others on here.
>
> The same goes for anyone who engages him
> or echoes his behavior.
>
> I've already prayed for him - both on here and in
> my heart, so it's now up to God.
>


But which one ?

geoff

[None]

<thekma @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> I suggest we all give him the silent treatment

Is that why you keep screaming at me?

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> Until you cite EXAMPLES of my *alleged* rubbish, I stand vindicated.

How does that RE15 condenser sound without phantom power? Does it
sound like a dead hobby horse? How do you vindicate a dead horse?

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

geoff > writes:

> On 19/04/2015 7:42 a.m., Randy Yates wrote:
>
>>
>> In any case, the original version was certainly good enough to represent
>> the qualities which were the object of my post. Can we get past this
>> nit-picking and to the recording and mixing issues I'm bringing up?
>>
>
> A good simple clear recording without clutter. A good wide frequency
> range, which is just as well otherwise the acoustic bass would
> probably not come through much at all.

geoff,

I'm pretty sure that's an electric bass there. I think the other points
are correct.

I haven't given enough emphasis to what is probably the main reasons:
talented musicians, a beautiful arrangement, and a talented singer.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Luxey]

There are 2 basses in there.

The reason it sounds so good is they've used every production and recording trick
known to men, at the time, to make it better.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Randy Yates wrote:
> writes:
>
>> In my opinion,
>> Many older recording sound good because back then
>> the equipment WAS good enough to make good recordings
>> and also the arrangements and performances were excellent.
>>
>> Today the equipment has too many bells and whistles
>> and less emphasis is placed on the material.
>>
>>
>> The main reason is that most recordings today
>> Are over processed, specifically dynamic range is overly
>> Compressed.
>
> I suspect you are very close, if not right on, the mark, Mark!
> Especially the arrangements/performances. Also the dynamic
> range/compression observation sounds about right. Look at what we've
> lost in the process. Sad.
>
> There's also the economics. Why is it that in 1968 recording labels
> could afford a small orchestra for a recording such as this but today
> it's prohibitively expensive?
>


In 1968, the only two things you could buy and take home were sheet
music and vinyl records.

In 1968 the networks could afford to give Glen Campbell a variety
television show. Campbell himself, in an interview, said that it
would now cost not just too much, but *way* too much.

So probably for the same basic reasons.

Broadway shows, movies, even books seem to be the same. There's
a bio film of Robert Altman - titled "Altman" - where you can
track this in movies over the years. So Altman reinvented indie films
because he'd managed to have a network of people who could accommodate
lower financed projects.

People like Louis C.K. have now refined this to where it costs very
little to make something, but you can't do that in a normal fashion.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's likely just due to Baumol Cost Disease.
At least that's what I read into Zappa's experience with the London
Symphony Orchestra.

But it's also because there so much more money sloshing around
that the perceived risk is too high.

--
Les Cargill

[Luxey]

недеља, 19. април 2015. 13.08.48 UTC+2, Randy Yates је написао/ла:
> geoff > writes:
>
> > On 19/04/2015 7:42 a.m., Randy Yates wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> In any case, the original version was certainly good enough to represent
> >> the qualities which were the object of my post. Can we get past this
> >> nit-picking and to the recording and mixing issues I'm bringing up?
> >>
> >
> > A good simple clear recording without clutter. A good wide frequency
> > range, which is just as well otherwise the acoustic bass would
> > probably not come through much at all.
>
> geoff,
>
> I'm pretty sure that's an electric bass there. I think the other points
> are correct.
>
> I haven't given enough emphasis to what is probably the main reasons:
> talented musicians, a beautiful arrangement, and a talented singer.
> --
> Randy Yates
> Digital Signal Labs
> http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

There are 2 basses in there.

The reason it sounds so good is they've used every production and recording trick
known to men, at the time, to make it better.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 8:00:43 AM UTC-4, Luxey wrote:
> недеља, 19. април 2015. 13.08.48 UTC+2, Randy Yates је написао/ла:
> > geoff > writes:
> >
> > > On 19/04/2015 7:42 a.m., Randy Yates wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> In any case, the original version was certainly good enough to represent
> > >> the qualities which were the object of my post. Can we get past this
> > >> nit-picking and to the recording and mixing issues I'm bringing up?
> > >>
> > >
> > > A good simple clear recording without clutter. A good wide frequency
> > > range, which is just as well otherwise the acoustic bass would
> > > probably not come through much at all.
> >
> > geoff,
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that's an electric bass there. I think the other points
> > are correct.
> >
> > I haven't given enough emphasis to what is probably the main reasons:
> > talented musicians, a beautiful arrangement, and a talented singer.
> > --
> > Randy Yates
> > Digital Signal Labs
> > http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
>
> There are 2 basses in there.
>
> The reason it sounds so good is they've used every production and recording trick
> known to men, at the time, to make it better.

also it seems to me in that particular
recording, some of the tracks are hard panned
left or right which was popular in early stereo.

I think hard panning is a good technique that has lost favor
for some reason.

Mark

[hank alrich]

Randy Yates > wrote:

> geoff > writes:
>
> > On 18/04/2015 5:07 p.m., Peter Larsen wrote:
> >> "Randy Yates" > skrev i en meddelelse
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
> >>
> >>> The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
> >>> years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?
> >>
> >> Hollywood sound stage and crew suspected as cause. It has all the
> >> characteristics of Janis Ians first album. I am always amazed that it
> >> is not included in what the audiophiles bawk on about, if they knew
> >> (audio) they should.
> >
> > It always was. I have half-speed -mastere, or Practical Hifi (or
> > something) 'Supercut' version of this.
>
> You mean Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs' half-speed master of the vinyl?
> Cool. I used to buy those when they were available and I could afford
> it; I believe I had the Al Stewart "Year of the Cat" album in a
> half-speed master.

One of the foundiers of MFSL used to post here a long time back. Smart
guy.

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

[hank alrich]

None > wrote:

> Does it sound like a dead hobby horse? How do you vindicate a dead horse?

Feed it rolled boats.


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

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

writes:

> On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 8:00:43 AM UTC-4, Luxey wrote:
>> недеља, 19. април 2015. 13.08.48 UTC+2, Randy Yates је написао/ла:
>> > geoff > writes:
>> >
>> > > On 19/04/2015 7:42 a.m., Randy Yates wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> In any case, the original version was certainly good enough to represent
>> > >> the qualities which were the object of my post. Can we get past this
>> > >> nit-picking and to the recording and mixing issues I'm bringing up?
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > A good simple clear recording without clutter. A good wide frequency
>> > > range, which is just as well otherwise the acoustic bass would
>> > > probably not come through much at all.
>> >
>> > geoff,
>> >
>> > I'm pretty sure that's an electric bass there. I think the other points
>> > are correct.
>> >
>> > I haven't given enough emphasis to what is probably the main reasons:
>> > talented musicians, a beautiful arrangement, and a talented singer.
>> > --
>> > Randy Yates
>> > Digital Signal Labs
>> > http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
>>
>> There are 2 basses in there.
>>
>> The reason it sounds so good is they've used every production and recording trick
>> known to men, at the time, to make it better.
>
> also it seems to me in that particular
> recording, some of the tracks are hard panned
> left or right which was popular in early stereo.
>
> I think hard panning is a good technique that has lost favor
> for some reason.

Good point, Mark, and I agree (although I'm no recording
engineer/mastering engineer).
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[JackA]

On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 3:05:34 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 18/04/2015 05:54, Randy Yates wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
> >
> > The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
> > years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?
> >
> I take it you're referring to the original sounding good, not the
> Youtube version you link to?
>
> Anyone who thinks that Youtube sound is even slightly good needs their
> hearing tested.

If you have better, I'd love to hear it! :-)

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

[JackA]

On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 4:53:42 PM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
> Randy Yates > wrote:
>
> > geoff > writes:
> >
> > > On 18/04/2015 5:07 p.m., Peter Larsen wrote:
> > >> "Randy Yates" > skrev i en meddelelse
> > >> ...
> > >>
> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
> > >>
> > >>> The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
> > >>> years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?
> > >>
> > >> Hollywood sound stage and crew suspected as cause. It has all the
> > >> characteristics of Janis Ians first album. I am always amazed that it
> > >> is not included in what the audiophiles bawk on about, if they knew
> > >> (audio) they should.
> > >
> > > It always was. I have half-speed -mastere, or Practical Hifi (or
> > > something) 'Supercut' version of this.
> >
> > You mean Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs' half-speed master of the vinyl?
> > Cool. I used to buy those when they were available and I could afford
> > it; I believe I had the Al Stewart "Year of the Cat" album in a
> > half-speed master.
>
> One of the foundiers of MFSL used to post here a long time back. Smart
> guy.

If so smart, I'm curious why he sold out? Maybe because he knew session tapes would soon surface, exceeding the sound of "master" tapes? Whoever is currently behind of MFSL label, is desperate for money, especially when they select The Raspberries to publish as audiophile recordings.

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

[JackA]

On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 12:54:45 AM UTC-4, Randy Yates wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
>
> The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
> years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?
> --
> Randy Yates
> Digital Signal Labs
> http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

And, you are correct, recording studio time costs $$$ and paying musicians with real talent also costs $$$, especially Take after Take after Take.

Odd that I have yet to hear/find ANY Glen Campbell outtakes.

Just to avoid studio costs, John Cougar recorded one or more albums in his sister's barn.

Jack

[John Williamson]

On 20/04/2015 00:12, JackA wrote:
> On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 3:05:34 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 18/04/2015 05:54, Randy Yates wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
>>>
>>> The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
>>> years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?
>>>
>> I take it you're referring to the original sounding good, not the
>> Youtube version you link to?
>>
>> Anyone who thinks that Youtube sound is even slightly good needs their
>> hearing tested.
>
> If you have better, I'd love to hear it! :-)
>
Just listen to anything you hear on Youtube in the original format, and
you'll hear the difference. Even the remastered CDs you hate so much
sound better than Youbend audio.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 11:20:51 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 20/04/2015 00:12, JackA wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 3:05:34 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 18/04/2015 05:54, Randy Yates wrote:
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
> >>>
> >>> The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
> >>> years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?
> >>>
> >> I take it you're referring to the original sounding good, not the
> >> Youtube version you link to?
> >>
> >> Anyone who thinks that Youtube sound is even slightly good needs their
> >> hearing tested.
> >
> > If you have better, I'd love to hear it! :-)
> >
> Just listen to anything you hear on Youtube in the original format, and
> you'll hear the difference. Even the remastered CDs you hate so much
> sound better than Youbend audio.

Can you be more specific and point me to the exact CD that you feel sounds superior to what Randy posted?

Jack

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

[Edi Zubovic]

On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 08:28:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


>also it seems to me in that particular
>recording, some of the tracks are hard panned
>left or right which was popular in early stereo.
>
>I think hard panning is a good technique that has lost favor
>for some reason.
>
>Mark

-- Yes they are, more to left than to right in this recording. You
were limited by record cutting process and wrong panninng almost
unnoticed today would wreck the cut. And stereo had to be clearly
audible :)
But otherwise, the performance, arrangement and live performers ("The
Wrecking Crew"?) are someting I sure miss nowadays. Granted, it's
expensive but it cannot be subsituted by anything.
Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

[geoff]

On 19/04/2015 11:08 p.m., Randy Yates wrote:
> geoff > writes:
>
>> On 19/04/2015 7:42 a.m., Randy Yates wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In any case, the original version was certainly good enough to represent
>>> the qualities which were the object of my post. Can we get past this
>>> nit-picking and to the recording and mixing issues I'm bringing up?
>>>
>>
>> A good simple clear recording without clutter. A good wide frequency
>> range, which is just as well otherwise the acoustic bass would
>> probably not come through much at all.
>
> geoff,
>
> I'm pretty sure that's an electric bass there. I think the other points
> are correct.
>
> I haven't given enough emphasis to what is probably the main reasons:
> talented musicians, a beautiful arrangement, and a talented singer.
>

Ooops - I'd moved on to Janis Ian ! Specifically 'Between The Lines'.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 20/04/2015 04:50, JackA wrote:
>> Just listen to anything you hear on Youtube in the original format, and
>> you'll hear the difference. Even the remastered CDs you hate so much
>> sound better than Youbend audio.
>
> Can you be more specific and point me to the exact CD that you feel sounds superior to what Randy posted?
>
Any CD featuring that track.

Maybe this one, if you're quick and beat everyone else to the last one
in stock:-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wichita-Lineman-Glen-Campbell/dp/B000008550/ref=sr_1_2

However, given your proved hearing problems, maybe you'd have trouble
telling the difference. You may prefer the MP3 download, which is easily
found on Amazon or iTunes.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 4:25:08 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 20/04/2015 04:50, JackA wrote:
> >> Just listen to anything you hear on Youtube in the original format, and
> >> you'll hear the difference. Even the remastered CDs you hate so much
> >> sound better than Youbend audio.
> >
> > Can you be more specific and point me to the exact CD that you feel sounds superior to what Randy posted?
> >
> Any CD featuring that track.
>
> Maybe this one, if you're quick and beat everyone else to the last one
> in stock:-
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wichita-Lineman-Glen-Campbell/dp/B000008550/ref=sr_1_2
>
> However, given your proved hearing problems, maybe you'd have trouble
> telling the difference. You may prefer the MP3 download, which is easily
> found on Amazon or iTunes.
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

My hearing problem? Your reading problem...

Review #1
"Some tracks are quite different from the studio versions".

Review #2
"This CD is Glen Campbell in concert LIVE in Concert NOT what I wanted".

I knew you'd fizzle out!

Jack :-)

[Scott Dorsey]

Randy Yates > wrote:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
>
>The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
>years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?

It's a group sitting together in one room. The string section is tightly
spotted but it's real musicians sitting in a room with charts in front
of them.

The arrangement is tight; the strings underlay everything, but careful
space is made for the vocals and the drums are minimal but right on.

You can still record like this now, but the problems you run into are
mostly a result of the fact that people don't do it any more.

Back in the seventies, you could call over to the union and say "send over
a string section" and they'd send over a bunch of guys who had been playing
together for years and probably had been playing with the other guys you
called. So they were tight, and they could sit down and play the charts
and then go home.

The problem is not that the top-notch performers don't exist, there are
still plenty of them. You can still get them. The problem is that there
aren't enough gigs for them in one place... so they aren't all in Nashville
and LA any longer, and you are going to have to pay to fly them in.

The studio I worked for in Atlanta had a regular customer in an elevator
music company. They'd come into the studio once a week with a bunch of
charts and a bunch of musicians. The musicians would sit down and play
the charts, then collect a check and go off to the next gig. You'd go to
the symphony and see the same performers that yesterday were in the string
section with the pop group and tomorrow will be doing Muzak. So you had
guys who were always working, who didn't need to make a huge amount of
money off of one gig, and who were at the top of their form because they
were always in practice.

MIDI put most of those guys out on the street.

Same goes for the room... if you want to track a band together, you need a
good room where they can hear themselves and hear the room and where the
room goes onto tape as well. Most of those really good studios are closed
now, because people don't record that way anymore.

So, the kind of job that was a routine everyday job back then now becomes
a very expensive exercise in logistics.

It's nice, though, that people do still occasionally do real sessions that
way. Check out the soundtrack album for The Incredibles.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>If I had to guess, I'd say it's likely just due to Baumol Cost Disease.
>At least that's what I read into Zappa's experience with the London
>Symphony Orchestra.

It's interesting, though, that a union call in London will get you a
pickup orchestra that is 75% of the LSO for a tiny fraction of the cost
of the LSO. Zappa was in part paying for the name and the cat-herding.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Edi Zubovic <edi.zubovic[rem > wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 08:28:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
>>also it seems to me in that particular
>>recording, some of the tracks are hard panned
>>left or right which was popular in early stereo.
>>
>>I think hard panning is a good technique that has lost favor
>>for some reason.
>>
>-- Yes they are, more to left than to right in this recording. You
>were limited by record cutting process and wrong panninng almost
>unnoticed today would wreck the cut. And stereo had to be clearly
>audible :)

In the seventies, a lot of people were listening on portable stereo
phonographs, or on all-in-one console hi-fi sets, with the speakers
fairly close together and very limited imaging. In the eighties
they were listening on boom boxes with similar problems. So there was
a definite argument in favor of exaggerated panning, to compensate for
this.

These days so many people are listening either on headphones or on
desktop "multimedia systems" with the speakers on either side of their
head. So today we have something of the opposite push to collapse the
image so the hole in the middle is reduced for these people.

>But otherwise, the performance, arrangement and live performers ("The
>Wrecking Crew"?) are someting I sure miss nowadays. Granted, it's
>expensive but it cannot be subsituted by anything.

Sigh. Hey, are you going to be in Warsaw next month, Edi?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Edi Zubovic]

On 20 Apr 2015 10:50:09 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Edi Zubovic <edi.zubovic[rem > wrote:
>>On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 08:28:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>
>>>also it seems to me in that particular
>>>recording, some of the tracks are hard panned
>>>left or right which was popular in early stereo.
>>>
>>>I think hard panning is a good technique that has lost favor
>>>for some reason.
>>>
>>-- Yes they are, more to left than to right in this recording. You
>>were limited by record cutting process and wrong panninng almost
>>unnoticed today would wreck the cut. And stereo had to be clearly
>>audible :)
>
>In the seventies, a lot of people were listening on portable stereo
>phonographs, or on all-in-one console hi-fi sets, with the speakers
>fairly close together and very limited imaging. In the eighties
>they were listening on boom boxes with similar problems. So there was
>a definite argument in favor of exaggerated panning, to compensate for
>this.
>
>These days so many people are listening either on headphones or on
>desktop "multimedia systems" with the speakers on either side of their
>head. So today we have something of the opposite push to collapse the
>image so the hole in the middle is reduced for these people.
>
>>But otherwise, the performance, arrangement and live performers ("The
>>Wrecking Crew"?) are someting I sure miss nowadays. Granted, it's
>>expensive but it cannot be subsituted by anything.
>
>Sigh. Hey, are you going to be in Warsaw next month, Edi?
>--scott

Sadly no, Scott. I wish I would, I'm sure I would have the pleasure of
meeting you in persona...

So I'll wait as always for your great reports.

Edi Zubovic,m Crikvenica, Croatia

[John Williamson]

On 20/04/2015 11:37, JackA wrote:
> On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 4:25:08 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 20/04/2015 04:50, JackA wrote:
>>>> Just listen to anything you hear on Youtube in the original format, and
>>>> you'll hear the difference. Even the remastered CDs you hate so much
>>>> sound better than Youbend audio.
>>>
>>> Can you be more specific and point me to the exact CD that you feel sounds superior to what Randy posted?
>>>
>> Any CD featuring that track.
>>
>> Maybe this one, if you're quick and beat everyone else to the last one
>> in stock:-
>>
>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wichita-Lineman-Glen-Campbell/dp/B000008550/ref=sr_1_2
>>
>> However, given your proved hearing problems, maybe you'd have trouble
>> telling the difference. You may prefer the MP3 download, which is easily
>> found on Amazon or iTunes.
>>
>> --
>> Tciao for Now!
>>
>> John.
>
> My hearing problem? Your reading problem...
>

> I knew you'd fizzle out!
>
From my collection, the CD this Youtube track was originally ripped from:-

Sony Music Entertainment (UK) Ltd. SONYTV67CD


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 4:18:13 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 20/04/2015 11:37, JackA wrote:
> > On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 4:25:08 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 20/04/2015 04:50, JackA wrote:
> >>>> Just listen to anything you hear on Youtube in the original format, and
> >>>> you'll hear the difference. Even the remastered CDs you hate so much
> >>>> sound better than Youbend audio.
> >>>
> >>> Can you be more specific and point me to the exact CD that you feel sounds superior to what Randy posted?
> >>>
> >> Any CD featuring that track.
> >>
> >> Maybe this one, if you're quick and beat everyone else to the last one
> >> in stock:-
> >>
> >> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wichita-Lineman-Glen-Campbell/dp/B000008550/ref=sr_1_2
> >>
> >> However, given your proved hearing problems, maybe you'd have trouble
> >> telling the difference. You may prefer the MP3 download, which is easily
> >> found on Amazon or iTunes.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tciao for Now!
> >>
> >> John.
> >
> > My hearing problem? Your reading problem...
> >
>
> > I knew you'd fizzle out!
> >
> From my collection, the CD this Youtube track was originally ripped from:-
>
> Sony Music Entertainment (UK) Ltd. SONYTV67CD
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

Okay, I'll leave you off the hook this time....
http://www.discogs.com/Various-Music-To-Watch-Girls-By/release/2577105

Thanks!!

Jack

[John Williamson]

On 20/04/2015 22:09, JackA wrote:
> Okay, I'll leave you off the hook this time....
> http://www.discogs.com/Various-Music-To-Watch-Girls-By/release/2577105
>
Got it already, thanks. ;-)


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 5:29:37 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 20/04/2015 22:09, JackA wrote:
> > Okay, I'll leave you off the hook this time....
> > http://www.discogs.com/Various-Music-To-Watch-Girls-By/release/2577105
> >
> Got it already, thanks. ;-)

FUNNY!!!

I can't find any audiophile CDs. Elliot has a 1/2 Mastered LP. I want HQ sound!!

I've seen that CD before :-)

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Randy Yates > wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
>>
>> The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
>> years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?
>
> It's a group sitting together in one room. The string section is tightly
> spotted but it's real musicians sitting in a room with charts in front
> of them.
>
> The arrangement is tight; the strings underlay everything, but careful
> space is made for the vocals and the drums are minimal but right on.
>
> You can still record like this now, but the problems you run into are
> mostly a result of the fact that people don't do it any more.
>
> Back in the seventies, you could call over to the union and say "send over
> a string section" and they'd send over a bunch of guys who had been playing
> together for years and probably had been playing with the other guys you
> called. So they were tight, and they could sit down and play the charts
> and then go home.
>
> The problem is not that the top-notch performers don't exist, there are
> still plenty of them. You can still get them. The problem is that there
> aren't enough gigs for them in one place... so they aren't all in Nashville
> and LA any longer, and you are going to have to pay to fly them in.
>
> The studio I worked for in Atlanta had a regular customer in an elevator
> music company. They'd come into the studio once a week with a bunch of
> charts and a bunch of musicians. The musicians would sit down and play
> the charts, then collect a check and go off to the next gig. You'd go to
> the symphony and see the same performers that yesterday were in the string
> section with the pop group and tomorrow will be doing Muzak. So you had
> guys who were always working, who didn't need to make a huge amount of
> money off of one gig, and who were at the top of their form because they
> were always in practice.
>
> MIDI put most of those guys out on the street.
>


MIDI could not compete with that until around 1998-2000, whenever the
really good software samplers came online ( Gigasampler ).

Yeah, you could use a Kurzweil or something before that but
it's not even nearly the same.

> Same goes for the room... if you want to track a band together, you need a
> good room where they can hear themselves and hear the room and where the
> room goes onto tape as well. Most of those really good studios are closed
> now, because people don't record that way anymore.
>
> So, the kind of job that was a routine everyday job back then now becomes
> a very expensive exercise in logistics.
>
> It's nice, though, that people do still occasionally do real sessions that
> way. Check out the soundtrack album for The Incredibles.
> --scott
>

--
Les Cargill

[MG[_4_]]

"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
...

John Williamson > wrote:
> On 18/04/2015 05:54, Randy Yates wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fwOTDaO4bg
> >
> > The violins, the brass, this recording just sounds GREAT! And it's 40
> > years old!!! Why can't we record like this now?
> >
> I take it you're referring to the original sounding good, not the
> Youtube version you link to?
>
> Anyone who thinks that Youtube sound is even slightly good needs their
> hearing tested.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rgLd6A0DWM&list=RD9rgLd6A0DWM#t=2

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

Roy, I really admire the work you've shared. You were lucky to be able to
do the stuff you did.

mg