Tape Recorders, Radio, HD Radio, Stereo, ETC.

[JackA]

First off, I was glad to find both Blood, Sweat & Tears and Roberta Flack were both recorded with an Ampex MM1000 (Music Maker) tape recorder. I soon learned it had options, unlike the common 16 tracks, had up-to 24 tracks and even 15"-30" speed selections available.
Anyone know of ANY US Top 40 song that was recorded at 30 IPS?

Now, let's talk Motown. Most say Motown had a "hot" sound. But what was the cause of this hot sound? The song below was found on CD. I looked at the waveform and wondered why it wasn't maximized. I'll tell you why, because it begins to sound TOO loud. Did Motown just record things better than average? Did they drive things into slight distortion? I seem to detect rich mid frequencies.

Anyway, my beef with radio, especially now that most are equipped with HD Radio. When FM Stereo stations began to surface, you'd find banners at some stations, "We got the Stereo", or similar. And then comes along Robert J. Struble at iBiquity, mentor of HD Radio. While he COULD have taken on services such as Apple, Inc. iTunes, he failed to know what would be played on his HQ radio stations. What is so good about digital broadcasts if the same old spent sounding music is played? This is VERY common, if you leave it in the hands of radio managers and radio hosts. iBiquity should have offered an additional service to maintain its subscribers to the best sound quality, update as necessary.

For example, while Marvin Gaye isn't very easy to find Stereo renditions, especially his earlier (Philly) hits, they can be found. Maybe Universal Music dropped the ball, too, not doing a great job of promoting to radio and playing hide and seek.

It's not radio I applause, but my own desire to HEAR what I want to HEAR, not by some paid radio host...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/doggone-s.mp3

In closing....
On WABC-AM, 770 KHz, today mentioned 63% of Americans support gay marriage. I have yet to find anyone in favor of it. I did a quick internet search and found a 63% figure, but conveniently on a gay support site. Not sure why Americans lie, maybe it's part of their survival to do so.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "Now, let's talk Motown. Most say Motown had a "hot" sound. But what was the
cause of this hot sound? The song below was found on CD. I looked at the waveform and
wondered why it wasn't maximized. I'll tell you why, because it begins to sound TOO loud. Did
Motown just record things better than average? Did they drive things into slight distortion?
I seem to detect rich mid frequencies. "


Think in terms of Volts instead of Volume/loudness. Maximize, regain something
that's been compressed and/or limited, and you actually begin to overload the
input stages of whatever it's being played back through(the receiver, amp, or
even mp3 player). It's the same concept as of old: where recording hot levels
to tape results in "natural" compression. These inputs are expecting a nominal
voltage sometimes a fraction of what is actually reaching them!


It's why I have Harrison Labs attenuators on the back of my receiver, between
it and the CD changer and between it and the DVD/VHS combo. Sure, I have to
turn my receiver volume up a bit more, but I'm guaranteeing that no potential
distortion is coming from the receiver. Now is a hot CD overloading the player's
D/A converter? That's another hilla beans...

[geoff]

On 24/06/2015 1:10 p.m., wrote:
> JackA wrote: "Now, let's talk Motown. Most say Motown had a "hot" sound. But what was the
> cause of this hot sound? The song below was found on CD. I looked at the waveform and
> wondered why it wasn't maximized. I'll tell you why, because it begins to sound TOO loud. Did
> Motown just record things better than average? Did they drive things into slight distortion?
> I seem to detect rich mid frequencies. "
>
>
> Think in terms of Volts instead of Volume/loudness. Maximize, regain something
> that's been compressed and/or limited, and you actually begin to overload the
> input stages of whatever it's being played back through(the receiver, amp, or
> even mp3 player). It's the same concept as of old: where recording hot levels
> to tape results in "natural" compression. These inputs are expecting a nominal
> voltage sometimes a fraction of what is actually reaching them!
>
>
> It's why I have Harrison Labs attenuators on the back of my receiver, between
> it and the CD changer and between it and the DVD/VHS combo. Sure, I have to
> turn my receiver volume up a bit more, but I'm guaranteeing that no potential
> distortion is coming from the receiver. Now is a hot CD overloading the player's
> D/A converter? That's another hilla beans...


No. The only thing that overloads an input stage is the peak level. Your
pad will reduce the chance of overloading the next input stage in the
sense of the peak level. An input stage simply doesn't care about
compression and high average RMS levels, as long as the maximum input
level is not exceeded.


The only effect of a highly compressed program is in a power
amplification device where the output stage (and maybe power supply) are
more highly stressed and temperatures will be higher. A transducer may
also struggle.

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
No. The only thing that overloads an input stage is the peak level. Your
pad will reduce the chance of overloading the next input stage in the
sense of the peak level. An input stage simply doesn't care about
compression and high average RMS levels, as long as the maximum input
level is not exceeded.


The only effect of a highly compressed program is in a power
amplification device where the output stage (and maybe power supply) are
more highly stressed and temperatures will be higher. A transducer may
also struggle.

geoff "

But you do admit something is being stressed within that amp. And it
also changes the sound, to a degree.

[geoff]

On 24/06/2015 2:14 p.m., wrote:
> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
> No. The only thing that overloads an input stage is the peak level. Your
> pad will reduce the chance of overloading the next input stage in the
> sense of the peak level. An input stage simply doesn't care about
> compression and high average RMS levels, as long as the maximum input
> level is not exceeded.
>
>
> The only effect of a highly compressed program is in a power
> amplification device where the output stage (and maybe power supply) are
> more highly stressed and temperatures will be higher. A transducer may
> also struggle.
>
> geoff "
>
> But you do admit something is being stressed within that amp. And it
> also changes the sound, to a degree.


No, not in the slightest.

The only stress at all is in the power amp output stage, and that is
beyond the output volume control, significantly AFTER input stages.
Likewise wrt the power supply.


geoff

[John Williamson]

On 23/06/2015 23:58, JackA wrote:
> Now, let's talk Motown. Most say Motown had a "hot" sound. But what was the cause of this hot sound? The song below was found on CD. I looked at the waveform and wondered why it wasn't maximized. I'll tell you why, because it begins to sound TOO loud. Did Motown just record things better than average? Did they drive things into slight distortion? I seem to detect rich mid frequencies.
>
A good sounding room, and very careful selection of good players, good
singers (Who had often learned their craft singing gospel in chapel
without amplification) and excellent orchestration. The classic Motown
sound owes a lot to the Phil Spector "Wall of Sound", with a huge
backline and microphones not too close to the instruments and singers.
If you look at the envelope on his recordings, there's plenty of dynamic
range, but they sound a lot louder than you would expect them to if they
had been made using modern digital technology and close micing.

Other tricks used included making use of the nice sound you get when
magnetic tape was driven slightly too hard, almost into saturation,
while optimising the bias levels. Not only was the distortion fairly
pleasant sounding, it made the track sound louder.

On a tour in the UK a few years ago with the Temptations, the Supremes
and Junior Walkers All Stars, there were a dozen or so musicians on the
backline, the Supremes singing backing, as well as the three girls on
the front row, with the girls backing the Temptations during their set.
That sounded *BIG*.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 4:17:01 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 23/06/2015 23:58, JackA wrote:
> > Now, let's talk Motown. Most say Motown had a "hot" sound. But what was the cause of this hot sound? The song below was found on CD. I looked at the waveform and wondered why it wasn't maximized. I'll tell you why, because it begins to sound TOO loud. Did Motown just record things better than average? Did they drive things into slight distortion? I seem to detect rich mid frequencies.
> >
> A good sounding room, and very careful selection of good players, good
> singers (Who had often learned their craft singing gospel in chapel
> without amplification) and excellent orchestration. The classic Motown
> sound owes a lot to the Phil Spector "Wall of Sound", with a huge
> backline and microphones not too close to the instruments and singers.
> If you look at the envelope on his recordings, there's plenty of dynamic
> range, but they sound a lot louder than you would expect them to if they
> had been made using modern digital technology and close micing.
>
> Other tricks used included making use of the nice sound you get when
> magnetic tape was driven slightly too hard, almost into saturation,
> while optimising the bias levels. Not only was the distortion fairly
> pleasant sounding, it made the track sound louder.
>
> On a tour in the UK a few years ago with the Temptations, the Supremes
> and Junior Walkers All Stars, there were a dozen or so musicians on the
> backline, the Supremes singing backing, as well as the three girls on
> the front row, with the girls backing the Temptations during their set.
> That sounded *BIG*.

John,

Difficult to dispute anything you wrote! One thing I noticed, maybe just particular songs, but it sounds like the bass is somewhat distorted.

Now, this Stereo track, unlike the previous one, was a bit too mellow (on CD), corrected as I felt necessary. I try to find Stereo versions that wouldn't upset monophonic admirers. Bottom line, it's just nice to hear Marvin in stereo!

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/wonderful1-s.mp3

Photo (have it scanned somewhere in my mess) of tape recording booth with Indiana Wants Me artist seated. Rack mounted tape unit(s). Not sure where/when it was taken.

Thanks, John.

Jack






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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 8:24:58 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 4:17:01 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> > On 23/06/2015 23:58, JackA wrote:
> > > Now, let's talk Motown. Most say Motown had a "hot" sound. But what was the cause of this hot sound? The song below was found on CD. I looked at the waveform and wondered why it wasn't maximized. I'll tell you why, because it begins to sound TOO loud. Did Motown just record things better than average? Did they drive things into slight distortion? I seem to detect rich mid frequencies.
> > >
> > A good sounding room, and very careful selection of good players, good
> > singers (Who had often learned their craft singing gospel in chapel
> > without amplification) and excellent orchestration. The classic Motown
> > sound owes a lot to the Phil Spector "Wall of Sound", with a huge
> > backline and microphones not too close to the instruments and singers.
> > If you look at the envelope on his recordings, there's plenty of dynamic
> > range, but they sound a lot louder than you would expect them to if they
> > had been made using modern digital technology and close micing.
> >
> > Other tricks used included making use of the nice sound you get when
> > magnetic tape was driven slightly too hard, almost into saturation,
> > while optimising the bias levels. Not only was the distortion fairly
> > pleasant sounding, it made the track sound louder.
> >
> > On a tour in the UK a few years ago with the Temptations, the Supremes
> > and Junior Walkers All Stars, there were a dozen or so musicians on the
> > backline, the Supremes singing backing, as well as the three girls on
> > the front row, with the girls backing the Temptations during their set.
> > That sounded *BIG*.
>
> John,
>
> Difficult to dispute anything you wrote! One thing I noticed, maybe just particular songs, but it sounds like the bass is somewhat distorted.
>
> Now, this Stereo track, unlike the previous one, was a bit too mellow (on CD), corrected as I felt necessary. I try to find Stereo versions that wouldn't upset monophonic admirers. Bottom line, it's just nice to hear Marvin in stereo!
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/wonderful1-s.mp3
>
> Photo (have it scanned somewhere in my mess) of tape recording booth with Indiana Wants Me artist seated. Rack mounted tape unit(s). Not sure where/when it was taken.
>
> Thanks, John.
>
> Jack

p.s. One thing I wanted to add, it was nice to hear some creative Stereo mixing (above), like the electric guitar(s) intro, panning left to right!! Why do it? Otherwise, one stereo channel would be dead until the remainder of the song started.

Jack

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

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 9:46:25 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 24/06/2015 1:10 p.m., wrote:
> > JackA wrote: "Now, let's talk Motown. Most say Motown had a "hot" sound. But what was the
> > cause of this hot sound? The song below was found on CD. I looked at the waveform and
> > wondered why it wasn't maximized. I'll tell you why, because it begins to sound TOO loud. Did
> > Motown just record things better than average? Did they drive things into slight distortion?
> > I seem to detect rich mid frequencies. "
> >
> >
> > Think in terms of Volts instead of Volume/loudness. Maximize, regain something
> > that's been compressed and/or limited, and you actually begin to overload the
> > input stages of whatever it's being played back through(the receiver, amp, or
> > even mp3 player). It's the same concept as of old: where recording hot levels
> > to tape results in "natural" compression. These inputs are expecting a nominal
> > voltage sometimes a fraction of what is actually reaching them!
> >
> >
> > It's why I have Harrison Labs attenuators on the back of my receiver, between
> > it and the CD changer and between it and the DVD/VHS combo. Sure, I have to
> > turn my receiver volume up a bit more, but I'm guaranteeing that no potential
> > distortion is coming from the receiver. Now is a hot CD overloading the player's
> > D/A converter? That's another hilla beans...
>
>
> No. The only thing that overloads an input stage is the peak level. Your
> pad will reduce the chance of overloading the next input stage in the
> sense of the peak level. An input stage simply doesn't care about
> compression and high average RMS levels, as long as the maximum input
> level is not exceeded.

... and saturation occurs?

Jack
>
>
> The only effect of a highly compressed program is in a power
> amplification device where the output stage (and maybe power supply) are
> more highly stressed and temperatures will be higher. A transducer may
> also struggle.
>
> geoff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

John Williamson wrote:
> On 23/06/2015 23:58, JackA wrote:
>> Now, let's talk Motown. Most say Motown had a "hot" sound. But what
>> was the cause of this hot sound? The song below was found on CD. I
>> looked at the waveform and wondered why it wasn't maximized. I'll tell
>> you why, because it begins to sound TOO loud. Did Motown just record
>> things better than average? Did they drive things into slight
>> distortion? I seem to detect rich mid frequencies.
>>
> A good sounding room, and very careful selection of good players, good
> singers (Who had often learned their craft singing gospel in chapel
> without amplification) and excellent orchestration. The classic Motown
> sound owes a lot to the Phil Spector "Wall of Sound", with a huge
> backline and microphones not too close to the instruments and singers.

Those are pretty different really. Spector really did have a lot of
musicians, more than was used at Motown.

The Motown sound just emerged, where Spector was just a lot more extreme
about it.

> If you look at the envelope on his recordings, there's plenty of dynamic
> range, but they sound a lot louder than you would expect them to if they
> had been made using modern digital technology and close micing.
>

It's a trick. It's arrangement, it's tasteful use of each instrument
for impact. It's being good at being in an ensemble. It's being
concise in your phrasing.

> Other tricks used included making use of the nice sound you get when
> magnetic tape was driven slightly too hard, almost into saturation,
> while optimising the bias levels. Not only was the distortion fairly
> pleasant sounding, it made the track sound louder.
>

I doubt that, really. As with any form of compression, it'll make it
sound *less* loud.

Might sound *cool*, but it won't sound *louder*.

> On a tour in the UK a few years ago with the Temptations, the Supremes
> and Junior Walkers All Stars, there were a dozen or so musicians on the
> backline, the Supremes singing backing, as well as the three girls on
> the front row, with the girls backing the Temptations during their set.
> That sounded *BIG*.
>

The only way you get "big" with a dozen musicians is if you have some
way to make sure they don't play too much. In big band, most of the
parts are doubles. It takes massive control to play Glenn Miller
thick chords without being overdone.

With a dozen *singers* who know how, you do get "big".

Elton John's records stole *mercilessly* from Spector. Motown and Muscle
Shoals. If they wanted "big" there, they'd get Ray Cooper to play
tambourine - something about that just sounds huge - probably
because they'd put reverb on it.

--
Les Cargill

[[email protected]]

Les Cargill wrote: "I doubt that, really. As with any form of compression, it'll make it
sound *less* loud.

Might sound *cool*, but it won't"


Compression by itself doesn't make it sound louder, but combined WITH MAKE-UP
GAIN it will BE louder. To me this is abuse of compression or limiting(peaks),
as I feel compression is a control effect.

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: ".. and saturation occurs?

Jack
- show quoted text -"


YES. Progressively, although some here don't
want to admit it.

I made some early Dead tracks excessively "hot"
in my DAW(8dB of peak limiting, plus 4:1 ratio
compression at -40dBfs), plus tons of regain,
put the WAV on CD, stuck it in my player, man
I thought my JVC receiver was gonna melt!

It really changed the sound. But don't tell that to
the good ol' boys, Jack!

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>
>YES. Progressively, although some here don't
>want to admit it.

That happens sometimes with badly designed equipment. The Mackie 1604 is
the best example I can think of; it sounds much better if you keep buss levels
20 dB below the "nominal" mark on the meter.

Well-designed equipment doesn't normally have this problem and so engineers
normally don't have to fight with it.

If you have equipment that changes sound or has a dramatic change in the
distortion plot as the level goes up or down below the clipping point, the
dumpster is probably the best place for it. There is equipment like that
out there; the best thing to do is to avoid it.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "If you have equipment that changes sound or has a dramatic change in the
distortion plot as the level goes up or down below the clipping point, the
dumpster is probably the best place for it. There is equipment like that
out there; the best thing to do is to avoid it. "


What belongs in the dumpster Scott is the source material - like
the simulation I described using the Grateful Dead,
or any main-stream CD from the 2000s.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 8:24:58 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 4:17:01 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> > On 23/06/2015 23:58, JackA wrote:
> > > Now, let's talk Motown. Most say Motown had a "hot" sound. But what was the cause of this hot sound?
>
.....
> Difficult to dispute anything you wrote! One thing I noticed, maybe just particular songs, but it sounds like the bass is somewhat distorted.
>
>

One of the few things Jack has said that I agree with..

I do notice many Mowtown records have distorted bass.... sounds like overdriven tape to me..... and I have always wondered if it was intentional or not ...

and how would the recording sound if the bass was not distroted.

Mark

[JackA]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 9:03:55 AM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote:
> John Williamson wrote:
> > On 23/06/2015 23:58, JackA wrote:
> >> Now, let's talk Motown. Most say Motown had a "hot" sound. But what
> >> was the cause of this hot sound? The song below was found on CD. I
> >> looked at the waveform and wondered why it wasn't maximized. I'll tell
> >> you why, because it begins to sound TOO loud. Did Motown just record
> >> things better than average? Did they drive things into slight
> >> distortion? I seem to detect rich mid frequencies.
> >>
> > A good sounding room, and very careful selection of good players, good
> > singers (Who had often learned their craft singing gospel in chapel
> > without amplification) and excellent orchestration. The classic Motown
> > sound owes a lot to the Phil Spector "Wall of Sound", with a huge
> > backline and microphones not too close to the instruments and singers.
>
> Those are pretty different really. Spector really did have a lot of
> musicians, more than was used at Motown.
>
> The Motown sound just emerged, where Spector was just a lot more extreme
> about it.
>
> > If you look at the envelope on his recordings, there's plenty of dynamic
> > range, but they sound a lot louder than you would expect them to if they
> > had been made using modern digital technology and close micing.
> >
>
> It's a trick. It's arrangement, it's tasteful use of each instrument
> for impact. It's being good at being in an ensemble. It's being
> concise in your phrasing.
>
> > Other tricks used included making use of the nice sound you get when
> > magnetic tape was driven slightly too hard, almost into saturation,
> > while optimising the bias levels. Not only was the distortion fairly
> > pleasant sounding, it made the track sound louder.
> >
>
> I doubt that, really. As with any form of compression, it'll make it
> sound *less* loud.
>
> Might sound *cool*, but it won't sound *louder*.

-- My two cents. Why do I trim peaks? Because I wish to hear more of what was recorded. Where would I stop? I'm guessing going beyond the RMS value, if there's such a thing with recorded music, will cause audible distortion. Granted, it won't sound louder, but will sound denser.

Good point, Les.

Jack

>
> > On a tour in the UK a few years ago with the Temptations, the Supremes
> > and Junior Walkers All Stars, there were a dozen or so musicians on the
> > backline, the Supremes singing backing, as well as the three girls on
> > the front row, with the girls backing the Temptations during their set.
> > That sounded *BIG*.
> >
>
> The only way you get "big" with a dozen musicians is if you have some
> way to make sure they don't play too much. In big band, most of the
> parts are doubles. It takes massive control to play Glenn Miller
> thick chords without being overdone.
>
> With a dozen *singers* who know how, you do get "big".
>
> Elton John's records stole *mercilessly* from Spector. Motown and Muscle
> Shoals. If they wanted "big" there, they'd get Ray Cooper to play
> tambourine - something about that just sounds huge - probably
> because they'd put reverb on it.
>
> --
> Les Cargill

[JackA]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 9:10:19 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote: "I doubt that, really. As with any form of compression, it'll make it
> sound *less* loud.
>
> Might sound *cool*, but it won't"
>
>
> Compression by itself doesn't make it sound louder, but combined WITH MAKE-UP
> GAIN it will BE louder. To me this is abuse of compression or limiting(peaks),
> as I feel compression is a control effect.

I'd be willing to bet it's used more often that you think.

To me, quick transient peaks do nothing for music.

Jack

[JackA]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 10:02:50 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 8:24:58 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 4:17:01 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> > > On 23/06/2015 23:58, JackA wrote:
> > > > Now, let's talk Motown. Most say Motown had a "hot" sound. But what was the cause of this hot sound?
> >
> ....
> > Difficult to dispute anything you wrote! One thing I noticed, maybe just particular songs, but it sounds like the bass is somewhat distorted.
> >
> >
>
> One of the few things Jack has said that I agree with..
>
> I do notice many Mowtown records have distorted bass.... sounds like overdriven tape to me..... and I have always wondered if it was intentional or not ...
>
> and how would the recording sound if the bass was not distroted.
>
> Mark

I'm guessing Motown avoided the use of acoustic guitars, because they, too, would be recognizably distorted if pushed to their limits. Electric guitars are different, so many gadgets connected to them, who actually knows how they should sound.

p.s. Even though I have the movie and never watched it, I didn't know there were "white" Funk Brothers!! :)

Jack

[JackA]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 9:16:03 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA wrote: ".. and saturation occurs?
>
> Jack
> - show quoted text -"
>
>
> YES. Progressively, although some here don't
> want to admit it.
>
> I made some early Dead tracks excessively "hot"
> in my DAW(8dB of peak limiting, plus 4:1 ratio
> compression at -40dBfs), plus tons of regain,
> put the WAV on CD, stuck it in my player, man
> I thought my JVC receiver was gonna melt!
>
> It really changed the sound. But don't tell that to
> the good ol' boys, Jack!

Mum's the word. Besides, if you foul it up too much, no worry, have multi-tracks, with about 7 seconds more of the song!...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/magnolia.mp3

Sadly, Classic Rock radio had more or less kissed the Dead goodbye!!! :(

Jack

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote: "I doubt that, really. As with any form of compression, it'll make it
> sound *less* loud.
>
> Might sound *cool*, but it won't"
>
>
> Compression by itself doesn't make it sound louder, but combined WITH MAKE-UP
> GAIN it will BE louder.


In terms of average ... VU level, yes.

In terms of *SOUND* - as information - it's probably false.

It might not be false, but that's an exceptional case.

> To me this is abuse of compression or limiting(peaks),
> as I feel compression is a control effect.
>

It's complicated.

--
Les Cargill

[Frank Stearns]

JackA > writes:

>On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 9:10:19 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote: "I doubt that, really. As with any form of compression, it'll make it
>> sound *less* loud.
>>
>> Might sound *cool*, but it won't"
>>
>>
>> Compression by itself doesn't make it sound louder, but combined WITH MAKE-UP
>> GAIN it will BE louder. To me this is abuse of compression or limiting(peaks),
>> as I feel compression is a control effect.

>I'd be willing to bet it's used more often that you think.

>To me, quick transient peaks do nothing for music.

For most pop music, this is probably true.

But you might do well "calibrating" your ears by periodically going to live music
events that don't use any amplification. It's just you and the instruments/voices,
hopefully in a good hall -- and nothing else. Might be a revelation to you.

That said, it doesn't hurt to reduce exaggerated transients caused by close
microphones, or ugly transients caused by high-distortion sources, such as electric
guitars.

It's good for engineers to experience exactly what happens when heavy limiting is
applied. Now, such limiting might be perfectly appropriate for some program material
and not so much for other material; the important practical lesson is to try it and
see what happens so that you *know* what's going on.

Get some well-recorded symphonic percussion material, sophisticated jazz drumming
and the like played back in a good room with good monitors. I mean, really
well-recorded source tracks, with NO dynamics processing, such that it feels very
live. (Alternative sources that will help illustrate things might be well-recorded
acoustic guitars, pianos, banjos, and the like.)

Strap a fast limiter across the stereo bus and start lowering the theshold to
shave those transients (don't change the listening volume, though, and be sure to
disengage any automatic make-up gain that the limiter might provide).

With a good limiter you shouldn't hear overt distortion, but Things Will Change.
It's easy to take that sparkling, real source and make it dull and less interesting
when you start hacking off most of the transients.

Keep pulling that threshold down more. At some point, you'll reach for the HF EQ to
dial back in some apparent top end. And, it'll start sounding like -- surprise! --
all the other pop music that's out there.

The trick (now that you know from this and similar experiments exactly what it is
the limiter is doing) is to strike an appropriate balance -- one that gets you a
higher crest fractor yet maintains the nice aspects of the original source, keeping
it as lively and hi-fi as practically possible.

It's a tricky business; YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Auido

--

[[email protected]]

Frank Stearns wrote: "Keep pulling that threshold down more. At some point, you'll reach for the HF EQ to
dial back in some apparent top end. And, it'll start sounding like -- surprise! --
all the other pop music that's out there. "

Best explanation on here!! :) And why
I practice the above most conservatively.

Copy, JackA?

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "To me, quick transient peaks do nothing for music."

They lend an airy openness to the sound. They exist for
a reason.

[MiNe109]

On 6/24/15 9:02 AM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 8:24:58 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 4:17:01 AM UTC-4, John Williamson
>> wrote:
>>> On 23/06/2015 23:58, JackA wrote:
>>>> Now, let's talk Motown. Most say Motown had a "hot" sound. But
>>>> what was the cause of this hot sound?
>>
> ....
>> Difficult to dispute anything you wrote! One thing I noticed, maybe
>> just particular songs, but it sounds like the bass is somewhat
>> distorted.
>>
>>
>
> One of the few things Jack has said that I agree with..
>
> I do notice many Mowtown records have distorted bass.... sounds like
> overdriven tape to me..... and I have always wondered if it was
> intentional or not ...
>
> and how would the recording sound if the bass was not distroted.

Maybe something like Phil Collins' Motown tribute album.

http://www.amazon.com/Going-Back-Phil-Collins/dp/B003HC8I5M

Stephen

[John Williamson]

On 24/06/2015 14:10, wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote: "I doubt that, really. As with any form of compression, it'll make it
> sound *less* loud.
>
> Might sound *cool*, but it won't"
>
>
> Compression by itself doesn't make it sound louder, but combined WITH MAKE-UP
> GAIN it will BE louder. To me this is abuse of compression or limiting(peaks),
> as I feel compression is a control effect.
>
It wasn't the compression that made it sound louder, it was the
distortion as the tape was driven out of its linear region, as we tend
to associate distortion with extra volume. Some of the tape simu;ation
plugins get fairly close to the effect, if you don't have a real tape
deck to fiddle with.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 25/06/2015 12:36 a.m., JackA wrote:
> p.s. One thing I wanted to add, it was nice to hear some creative
> Stereo mixing (above), like the electric guitar(s) intro, panning left
> to right!! Why do it? Otherwise, one stereo channel would be dead
> until the remainder of the song started. Jack


No. The guitar could have been placed anywhere in the stereo
sound-stage. It was a conscious (maybe gimmicky ) choice.

geoff

[geoff]

On 25/06/2015 12:40 a.m., JackA wrote:
>>
>> No. The only thing that overloads an input stage is the peak level. Your
>> pad will reduce the chance of overloading the next input stage in the
>> sense of the peak level. An input stage simply doesn't care about
>> compression and high average RMS levels, as long as the maximum input
>> level is not exceeded.
> .. and saturation occurs?
>
>


No. In a small-signal stage there is no such thing as saturation. Just
overload, and overload is purely related to peak level.

geoff

[geoff]

On 25/06/2015 1:16 a.m., wrote:
> JackA wrote: ".. and saturation occurs?
>
> Jack
> - show quoted text -"
>
>
> YES. Progressively, although some here don't
> want to admit it.
>
> I made some early Dead tracks excessively "hot"
> in my DAW(8dB of peak limiting, plus 4:1 ratio
> compression at -40dBfs), plus tons of regain,
> put the WAV on CD, stuck it in my player, man
> I thought my JVC receiver was gonna melt!
>
> It really changed the sound. But don't tell that to
> the good ol' boys, Jack!

You are listening to an inadequate power amp , or inadequate speakers.
Check it on the Tape Out.

geoff

[JackA]

True.

But...

Let's take a lot of Frank Sinatra Reprise Records recordings. Always the same thing, the band opens in the right speaker; Frank is eventually heard in the center; while strings follow vocals in the left speaker. Though I love stereo, until everything gets going, it sounds awkward.

Jack

[JackA]

I was thrilled to find audiophile pressings when collecting vinyl, late 80s. Sadly, while I thought I'd get a thrill, I didn't. Just too bland a sound for me.
That's all I have to say... sort of :)

Jack

[JackA]

Frank wrote: Get some well-recorded symphonic percussion material, sophisticated jazz drumming and the like played back in a good room with good monitors. I mean, really well-recorded source tracks, with NO dynamics processing...."

Let's take Take 5 by Dave Brubeck. Was that such a good recording, or was it all the echo that made it sound vibrant? Echo adds density to sound, why it gets used on many singers, the echo needs not be any greater in amplitude, it's the duration the counts.

Agree?

Thanks.

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/24/2015 9:29 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> That happens sometimes with badly designed equipment. The Mackie 1604 is
> the best example I can think of; it sounds much better if you keep buss levels
> 20 dB below the "nominal" mark on the meter.

That's a clipping problem, not saturation (I differentiate between the
two by what happens as the maximum output level is approached). the
problem with the Mackies, acutally up through the VLZ series, was that
the summing bus didn't have enough headroom to accommodate the sum of 16
channels even when each one was adjusted so that it peaked at 0 on the
meter when soloed. That was the "Mackie Level Setting Procedure" and
most people didn't follow it, but just turned the channel input gains up
so the the clip light only came on occasionally.

In the Onyx and VLZ3 and beyond, they lowered the internal levels and
got some quieter ICs so they could afford to do that and still maintain
the S/N ratio that they wanted to publish.

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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 3:33:22 PM UTC-4, MiNe109 wrote:
> On 6/24/15 9:02 AM, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 8:24:58 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 4:17:01 AM UTC-4, John Williamson
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 23/06/2015 23:58, JackA wrote:
> >>>> Now, let's talk Motown. Most say Motown had a "hot" sound. But
> >>>> what was the cause of this hot sound?
> >>
> > ....
> >> Difficult to dispute anything you wrote! One thing I noticed, maybe
> >> just particular songs, but it sounds like the bass is somewhat
> >> distorted.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > One of the few things Jack has said that I agree with..
> >
> > I do notice many Mowtown records have distorted bass.... sounds like
> > overdriven tape to me..... and I have always wondered if it was
> > intentional or not ...
> >
> > and how would the recording sound if the bass was not distroted.
>
> Maybe something like Phil Collins' Motown tribute album.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Going-Back-Phil-Collins/dp/B003HC8I5M
>
> Stephen

I like Phil, but I feel he would have been better off finding a better singer and just produced the album! Like that he used real horns!

Jack

[JackA]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 11:51:20 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/24/2015 9:29 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > That happens sometimes with badly designed equipment. The Mackie 1604 is
> > the best example I can think of; it sounds much better if you keep buss levels
> > 20 dB below the "nominal" mark on the meter.
>
> That's a clipping problem, not saturation (I differentiate between the
> two by what happens as the maximum output level is approached). the
> problem with the Mackies, acutally up through the VLZ series, was that
> the summing bus didn't have enough headroom to accommodate the sum of 16
> channels even when each one was adjusted so that it peaked at 0 on the
> meter when soloed. That was the "Mackie Level Setting Procedure" and
> most people didn't follow it, but just turned the channel input gains up
> so the the clip light only came on occasionally.
>
> In the Onyx and VLZ3 and beyond, they lowered the internal levels and
> got some quieter ICs so they could afford to do that and still maintain
> the S/N ratio that they wanted to publish.

Oh, okay, I thought you two were talking tape recorders, not miniature mixing consoles. I like A Grade Op amps :-)

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

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "You are listening to an inadequate power amp ,
or inadequate speakers."


Cute! Deflecting the issue of excessively hot recordings by
blaming it on the user's system. That's what I love about this group!
Stop by my house and listen to how "inadequate" my system is.
I'll have "Moving Pictures"(orig. CD) cued up in the changer when
you get here. ;)

[[email protected]]

OK time to inject some real electronics here...

there is a fundamental difference between overdriving an amplifier stage vs overdriving tape.

and that difference is due to negative feedback.

An amplifier stage with negative feedback (as any modern design will have) will remain essentially linear up to the clipping point. This is true for both low level stages and power amps. The negative feedback keeps it very linear until there just is no more swing.

In contrast, tape has no negative feedback and will become progressivly more non linear as you drive it harder.

Mark

[[email protected]]

8:54 wrote:
OK time to inject some real electronics here...

there is a fundamental difference between overdriving an amplifier stage vs
overdriving tape.

and that difference is due to negative feedback.

An amplifier stage with negative feedback (as any modern design will have) will
remain essentially linear up to the clipping point. This is true for both low level
stages and power amps. The negative feedback keeps it very linear until there
just is no more swing.

In contrast, tape has no negative feedback and will become progressivly more
non linear as you drive it harder.

Mark "


Thanks! Makes things much clearer. Now what does that mean, in terms
of what we hear, in each of those two circumstances?

[None]

> whined in message
...
> geoff wrote: "You are listening to an inadequate power amp ,
> or inadequate speakers."
>
>
> Cute! Deflecting the issue of excessively hot recordings by
> blaming it on the user's system.

Ugly! Deflecting the issue of audio discussions among people who
understand audio, by constantly and obsessively discussing your
rotting hobbyhorse, and proudly trumpeting your idiocy.

> That's what I love about this group!

You love how you can keep trolling, and on usenet, you can just keep
riding that horse around your kindergarten.,

> Stop by my house

No thanks, little buddy. I don't think anyone wants to deal with the
stench of that hobby corpse. Your hobby horse is a corpse, of course,
of corpse. But you can't stop riding it, because you're just a dumb
****.

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 8:54:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> OK time to inject some real electronics here...
>
> there is a fundamental difference between overdriving an amplifier stage vs overdriving tape.
>
> and that difference is due to negative feedback.
>
> An amplifier stage with negative feedback (as any modern design will have) will remain essentially linear up to the clipping point. This is true for both low level stages and power amps. The negative feedback keeps it very linear until there just is no more swing.
>
> In contrast, tape has no negative feedback and will become progressivly more non linear as you drive it harder.

But, Mark, human hearing is highly non linear!! :-)

Jack
>
> Mark

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

JackA > wrote:
> On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 8:54:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > OK time to inject some real electronics here...
> >=20
> > there is a fundamental difference between overdriving an amplifier
> > stage =
> vs overdriving tape.
> >=20
> > and that difference is due to negative feedback.
> >=20
> > An amplifier stage with negative feedback (as any modern design will
> > have=
> ) will remain essentially linear up to the clipping point. This is true
> fo= r both low level stages and power amps. The negative feedback keeps
> it ver= y linear until there just is no more swing.
> >=20
> > In contrast, tape has no negative feedback and will become
> > progressivly =
> more non linear as you drive it harder. =20
>
> But, Mark, human hearing is highly non linear!! :-)
>
> > Mark

Non sequitur, Jack. 'Time to let this thread die. Please!

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

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 12:10:56 PM UTC-4, Roy W. Rising wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 8:54:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > OK time to inject some real electronics here...
> > >=20
> > > there is a fundamental difference between overdriving an amplifier
> > > stage =
> > vs overdriving tape.
> > >=20
> > > and that difference is due to negative feedback.
> > >=20
> > > An amplifier stage with negative feedback (as any modern design will
> > > have=
> > ) will remain essentially linear up to the clipping point. This is true
> > fo= r both low level stages and power amps. The negative feedback keeps
> > it ver= y linear until there just is no more swing.
> > >=20
> > > In contrast, tape has no negative feedback and will become
> > > progressivly =
> > more non linear as you drive it harder. =20
> >
> > But, Mark, human hearing is highly non linear!! :-)
> >
> > > Mark
>
> Non sequitur, Jack.

It's it Roy Rising or Roy Falling?...

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/jan/31/human-hearing-is-highly-nonlinear

> 'Time to let this thread die. Please!

Your request has been taken into consideration!!

Jack :-)
>
> --
> ~ Roy
> "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Frank Stearns]

JackA > writes:

>On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 8:54:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>> OK time to inject some real electronics here...
>>=20
>> there is a fundamental difference between overdriving an amplifier stage =
>vs overdriving tape.
>>=20
>> and that difference is due to negative feedback.
>>=20
>> An amplifier stage with negative feedback (as any modern design will have=
>) will remain essentially linear up to the clipping point. This is true fo=
>r both low level stages and power amps. The negative feedback keeps it ver=
>y linear until there just is no more swing.
>>=20
>> In contrast, tape has no negative feedback and will become progressivly =
>more non linear as you drive it harder. =20

>But, Mark, human hearing is highly non linear!! :-)

True - but for hi-fi sound the idea is to minimize non-linearities /outside/ that
system. For the most "natural" experience, we want our recording and playback
systems to be transparent.

Now, for "artistic" reasons we might intentionally alter certain things along
the way, but that's another discussion.

Purely as a "capture-store-transmit/recreate" system the less alterations the
better.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Frank Stearns]

JackA > writes:

>Frank wrote: Get some well-recorded symphonic percussion material, sophisti=
>cated jazz drumming and the like played back in a good room with good monit=
>ors. I mean, really well-recorded source tracks, with NO dynamics processin=
>g...."

>Let's take Take 5 by Dave Brubeck. Was that such a good recording, or was i=
>t all the echo that made it sound vibrant? Echo adds density to sound, why =
>it gets used on many singers, the echo needs not be any greater in amplitud=
>e, it's the duration the counts.

>Agree?

I just pulled this album off the rack and took a quick listen and re-read the
liner notes.

You're overlooking a much larger universe...

- great players for what they did

- recorded at the 30th St. Studios in NYC -- big room (30' ceilings, IIRC), great
proportions, truly one of the magical rooms that sadly has been lost.

- recorded at 30ips. Back in those pre-ATR100 days, the diff between 15 and 30 was
stark. This has that shimmering clarity that in those days was only possible at 30,
and with a machine that was perfectly set up for running at 30. Not sure if it would
have been an Ampex 350 series; might have been a Studer. In England and Europe those
old Studers turned out some amazing classical recordings of that era; don't know of
Studer's USA market penetration in those days. But, this album almost has that kind
of sound.

But those were high-budget productions, given all the associated costs of the day
running at 30. This is where a lot of the vibrancy is coming from on this recording.


- the echo timbre is lovely, but it's only a mono chamber returned in the center.
Makes the whole reverb field seem a little odd that it's not stereo. (And in 1959,
you can bet this was a real chamber, mic and speaker in a highly reflective room
dedicated to the task. Might well have been the only echo chamber they had
available. Too bad someone hadn't played with using two mics in the chamber -- but
they might have been worried about mono compatibility, which was a very big deal
back then.)

As far as playing with this as a source to see what limiting does, I suppose you
could, though it's a ways from a well-done modern recording. A fair amount of peak
energy has already been shaved by transformers and tape heads. Don't get me wrong,
given that this was done more than a 1/2 century ago using "bear skins and stone
knives" (to quote Mr. Spock from "The City on the Edge of Tomorrow"), it's a helluva
recording. But in some ways it shows its age (like that mono echo and some
horrifically obvious edits -- cuts were made between takes that had different mic
placements. I bet more than once the production guys winced as these edits went by
and wished the hell they'd left the microphones alone. Also, the sax tone is
borderline. Needs some surgical EQ in the midrange, IMO.)

But, just to be clear, while good reverb can do a lot to help a recording, reverb
alone won't add complete vibrancy or make for an engaging listening experience. It's
that plus all of the above, and more.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>An amplifier stage with negative feedback (as any modern design will have) =
>will remain essentially linear up to the clipping point. This is true for =
>both low level stages and power amps. The negative feedback keeps it very =
>linear until there just is no more swing.

This is true for most modern designs, but you will still see stuff that
becomes nonlinear at some point below clipping. Feedback can help this,
but there's only so much that feedback can do.

Even worse you will see designs with low level issues due to crossover
distortion, where the distortion drops as the level increases, until you
get to clipping.

Add a transformer and everything changes, too.

>In contrast, tape has no negative feedback and will become progressivly mo=
>re non linear as you drive it harder. =20

Yes, and this effect is far more dramatic.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 6/24/2015 9:29 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> That happens sometimes with badly designed equipment. The Mackie 1604 is
>> the best example I can think of; it sounds much better if you keep buss levels
>> 20 dB below the "nominal" mark on the meter.
>
>That's a clipping problem, not saturation (I differentiate between the
>two by what happens as the maximum output level is approached). the
>problem with the Mackies, acutally up through the VLZ series, was that
>the summing bus didn't have enough headroom to accommodate the sum of 16
>channels even when each one was adjusted so that it peaked at 0 on the
>meter when soloed. That was the "Mackie Level Setting Procedure" and
>most people didn't follow it, but just turned the channel input gains up
>so the the clip light only came on occasionally.

Hmm... that is odd. So you're saying that the issue is that the buss
isn't just a simple summing buss and therefore knowing the output level
of the buss amps doesn't necessarily tell you that the buss isn't clipping
somewhere along the line with all those summing stages?

Even with one channel up and nothing else, it still sounds better to have
the levels reduced, which is why I was thinking that was in the end a
nonlinearity issue.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 1:58:23 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> JackA > writes:
>
> >Frank wrote: Get some well-recorded symphonic percussion material, sophisti=
> >cated jazz drumming and the like played back in a good room with good monit=
> >ors. I mean, really well-recorded source tracks, with NO dynamics processin=
> >g...."
>
> >Let's take Take 5 by Dave Brubeck. Was that such a good recording, or was i=
> >t all the echo that made it sound vibrant? Echo adds density to sound, why =
> >it gets used on many singers, the echo needs not be any greater in amplitud=
> >e, it's the duration the counts.
>
> >Agree?
>
> I just pulled this album off the rack and took a quick listen and re-read the
> liner notes.
>
> You're overlooking a much larger universe...
>
> - great players for what they did
>
> - recorded at the 30th St. Studios in NYC -- big room (30' ceilings, IIRC), great
> proportions, truly one of the magical rooms that sadly has been lost.
>
> - recorded at 30ips. Back in those pre-ATR100 days, the diff between 15 and 30 was
> stark. This has that shimmering clarity that in those days was only possible at 30,
> and with a machine that was perfectly set up for running at 30. Not sure if it would
> have been an Ampex 350 series; might have been a Studer. In England and Europe those
> old Studers turned out some amazing classical recordings of that era; don't know of
> Studer's USA market penetration in those days. But, this album almost has that kind
> of sound.
>
> But those were high-budget productions, given all the associated costs of the day
> running at 30. This is where a lot of the vibrancy is coming from on this recording.
>
>
> - the echo timbre is lovely, but it's only a mono chamber returned in the center.
> Makes the whole reverb field seem a little odd that it's not stereo. (And in 1959,
> you can bet this was a real chamber, mic and speaker in a highly reflective room
> dedicated to the task. Might well have been the only echo chamber they had
> available. Too bad someone hadn't played with using two mics in the chamber -- but
> they might have been worried about mono compatibility, which was a very big deal
> back then.)
>
> As far as playing with this as a source to see what limiting does, I suppose you
> could, though it's a ways from a well-done modern recording. A fair amount of peak
> energy has already been shaved by transformers and tape heads. Don't get me wrong,
> given that this was done more than a 1/2 century ago using "bear skins and stone
> knives" (to quote Mr. Spock from "The City on the Edge of Tomorrow"), it's a helluva
> recording. But in some ways it shows its age (like that mono echo and some
> horrifically obvious edits -- cuts were made between takes that had different mic
> placements. I bet more than once the production guys winced as these edits went by
> and wished the hell they'd left the microphones alone. Also, the sax tone is
> borderline. Needs some surgical EQ in the midrange, IMO.)
>
> But, just to be clear, while good reverb can do a lot to help a recording, reverb
> alone won't add complete vibrancy or make for an engaging listening experience. It's
> that plus all of the above, and more.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>
> --
> .

Frank, thanks.

First off, I THOUGHT it was a Capitol recording, not Columbia!

Second, 30 ISP in 1959??!! That blows my mind! I THOUGHT 30 ISP was something new about 1969!

Still feel an admirable recording, especially for 1959!!

Jack

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 2:09:12 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
> >An amplifier stage with negative feedback (as any modern design will have) =
> >will remain essentially linear up to the clipping point. This is true for =
> >both low level stages and power amps. The negative feedback keeps it very =
> >linear until there just is no more swing.
>
> This is true for most modern designs, but you will still see stuff that
> becomes nonlinear at some point below clipping. Feedback can help this,
> but there's only so much that feedback can do.
>
> Even worse you will see designs with low level issues due to crossover
> distortion, where the distortion drops as the level increases, until you
> get to clipping.
>
> Add a transformer and everything changes, too.

-- Or a flux capacitor!! :)

-- Things I learn, smaller recording head gap, less fringing, less penetration of magnetic field.
-- Metal tape, maybe once layered, had to avoid metal particles touching each other, would drive eddy current loss high (circulating currents), like a short circuit to a tape head.

Jack

>
> >In contrast, tape has no negative feedback and will become progressivly mo=
> >re non linear as you drive it harder. =20
>
> Yes, and this effect is far more dramatic.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

JackA > writes:


snips

>Frank, thanks.

>First off, I THOUGHT it was a Capitol recording, not Columbia!

Brubeck probably did do some stuff with Capitol, but the "Time Out" album on which
you'll find "Take Five" was indeed Columbia.


>Second, 30 ISP in 1959??!! That blows my mind! I THOUGHT 30 ISP was something new
>about 1969!

Actually, if memory serves, the first WWII German Magnetophons (or whatever they
were called) ran at 30 -- or many machines of the immediate post-war era ran at 30.
It was needed to get acceptable quality given all the other limits of such primitive
systems. (I have a vague memory that a few of the early experimental machines ran at
60, but can't say for sure. 60 IPS would have played havoc with the low end.)

But building a stable transport that could run at 30 and handle the delicate tapes
of those days during fast winds, stops, and starts was fringe (and expensive)
engineering. (Some tapes were paper-backed and broke easily; some were early
plastics that either stretched or broke nearly as easily as the paper stuff.) 15
became more acceptable as the basic system quality improved. And, your tape costs
halved and you didn't have to worry about breakage quite as much.

>Still feel an admirable recording, especially for 1959!!

Yes, it's pretty good. And, it's a great practical lesson that leakage in the studio
can be your friend.

There are Vanguard recordings of that era done at 30 with a pair of Sony C-37s that
sound remarkable, not to mention various offerings from the UK and Europe around the
same time.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/25/2015 2:17 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> So you're saying that the issue is that the buss
> isn't just a simple summing buss and therefore knowing the output level
> of the buss amps doesn't necessarily tell you that the buss isn't clipping
> somewhere along the line with all those summing stages?
>
> Even with one channel up and nothing else, it still sounds better to have
> the levels reduced, which is why I was thinking that was in the end a
> nonlinearity issue.

I don't have any Mackies here that are old enough to have this problem,
so I can't make any measurements to confirm what's happening. I'm just
going on what a couple of engineers at Mackie told me when I was there
in 1999-2000, the VLZ-Pro was just being introduced, and sloppy users
who were still having problems with distortion were advised to back off
on the input level, mix with the main fader at its design center ("unity
gain") position, and turn up their power amps' gain to get it loud
enough. I think that the problem mostly was that the maximum output of
the summing bus was (for the sake of discussion) +20 dBu. There's gain
ahead of it, so if you're summing a few channels that are also peaking
(and maybe themselves clipping) at +20 dBu, you're going to run out of
volts that the output can swing.



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

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 4:08:15 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> JackA > writes:
>
>
> snips
>
> >Frank, thanks.
>
> >First off, I THOUGHT it was a Capitol recording, not Columbia!
>
> Brubeck probably did do some stuff with Capitol, but the "Time Out" album on which
> you'll find "Take Five" was indeed Columbia.
>
>
> >Second, 30 ISP in 1959??!! That blows my mind! I THOUGHT 30 ISP was something new
> >about 1969!
>
> Actually, if memory serves, the first WWII German Magnetophons (or whatever they
> were called) ran at 30 -- or many machines of the immediate post-war era ran at 30.
> It was needed to get acceptable quality given all the other limits of such primitive
> systems. (I have a vague memory that a few of the early experimental machines ran at
> 60, but can't say for sure. 60 IPS would have played havoc with the low end.)
>
> But building a stable transport that could run at 30 and handle the delicate tapes
> of those days during fast winds, stops, and starts was fringe (and expensive)
> engineering. (Some tapes were paper-backed and broke easily; some were early
> plastics that either stretched or broke nearly as easily as the paper stuff.) 15
> became more acceptable as the basic system quality improved. And, your tape costs
> halved and you didn't have to worry about breakage quite as much.
>
> >Still feel an admirable recording, especially for 1959!!
>
> Yes, it's pretty good. And, it's a great practical lesson that leakage in the studio
> can be your friend.
>
> There are Vanguard recordings of that era done at 30 with a pair of Sony C-37s that
> sound remarkable, not to mention various offerings from the UK and Europe around the
> same time.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>
> --
> .

Frank, exactly! I THOUGHT it was 30 IPS that had the low end problems, probably due to resonance, but it had to be 60 IPS I was reading about!!

Answered another question: - German Magnetophons

Okay on Vanguard!

Thanks!!

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/25/2015 6:14 PM, JackA wrote:
> Frank, exactly! I THOUGHT it was 30 IPS that had the low end
> problems, probably due to resonance, but it had to be 60 IPS I was
> reading about!!

It's not about resonance, it's about gap length of the head relative to
the wavelength of the recorded sound. Another thing that's related to
the track geometry is the "head bump," a low frequency boost of a couple
of dB that, for most heads, is around 50 Hz at 15 ips and an octave
higher at 30 ips. Bass players love 30 ips, drummers prefer 15 ips. Or
something like that.



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

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 4:08:15 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> JackA > writes:
>
>
> snips
>
> >Frank, thanks.
>
> >First off, I THOUGHT it was a Capitol recording, not Columbia!
>
> Brubeck probably did do some stuff with Capitol, but the "Time Out" album on which
> you'll find "Take Five" was indeed Columbia.
>
>
> >Second, 30 ISP in 1959??!! That blows my mind! I THOUGHT 30 ISP was something new
> >about 1969!
>
> Actually, if memory serves, the first WWII German Magnetophons (or whatever they
> were called) ran at 30 -- or many machines of the immediate post-war era ran at 30.
> It was needed to get acceptable quality given all the other limits of such primitive
> systems. (I have a vague memory that a few of the early experimental machines ran at
> 60, but can't say for sure. 60 IPS would have played havoc with the low end.)
>
> But building a stable transport that could run at 30 and handle the delicate tapes
> of those days during fast winds, stops, and starts was fringe (and expensive)
> engineering. (Some tapes were paper-backed and broke easily; some were early
> plastics that either stretched or broke nearly as easily as the paper stuff.) 15
> became more acceptable as the basic system quality improved. And, your tape costs
> halved and you didn't have to worry about breakage quite as much.
>
> >Still feel an admirable recording, especially for 1959!!
>
> Yes, it's pretty good. And, it's a great practical lesson that leakage in the studio
> can be your friend.
>
> There are Vanguard recordings of that era done at 30 with a pair of Sony C-37s that
> sound remarkable, not to mention various offerings from the UK and Europe around the
> same time.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>
> --
> .

This is very interesting - 1949, 30 IPS!!??
Not sure when and where this Dolby or DBX stuff was used, never liked it myself.
Assume used during mixing or maybe even sound on sound?....

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/798992-when-did-15-ips-become-30-a.html

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/26/2015 10:34 AM, JackA wrote:
> Not sure when and where this Dolby or DBX stuff was used, never liked it myself.
> Assume used during mixing or maybe even sound on sound?....

Dolby A was from 1968 or thereabouts and it's probably been used on many
recordings that you've heard. DBX was a little later, and there was
another noise reduction system, Telcom, from Telefunken, that never
really took off.

Dolby noise reduction, for studio work, was generally used throughout
the whole process, tracking overdubbing, and the mix was almost always
to tape using Dolby. You say you never liked it yourself, but that may
be that they only exposure you've had to it where you could evaluate
what it did to a recording was the Dolby B or C that was used with
cassettes. That traded off reduced noise for wonky dynamics since there
wasn't a well adhered-to standard for tape level on cassettes that there
was for reel-to-reel Dolby tapes. Dolby S attempted to solve that, but
it was really too late coming to the market and cassettes were already
on they way out when it was just coming in.



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

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

JackA > wrote:
> On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 4:08:15 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> > JackA > writes:
> >
> > snips
>
> This is very interesting - 1949, 30 IPS!!??
> Not sure when and where this Dolby or DBX stuff was used, never liked it
> myself. Assume used during mixing or maybe even sound on sound?....
>
> Jack

A very revealing statement about yourself! Thanks.

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

[JackA]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 12:01:40 PM UTC-4, Roy W. Rising wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 4:08:15 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> > > JackA > writes:
> > >
> > > snips
> >
> > This is very interesting - 1949, 30 IPS!!??
> > Not sure when and where this Dolby or DBX stuff was used, never liked it
> > myself. Assume used during mixing or maybe even sound on sound?....
> >
> > Jack
>
> A very revealing statement about yourself! Thanks.

-- I give credit where credit is due....

-- Good one, Roy!!!

Jack

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

[JackA]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 11:53:42 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/26/2015 10:34 AM, JackA wrote:
> > Not sure when and where this Dolby or DBX stuff was used, never liked it myself.
> > Assume used during mixing or maybe even sound on sound?....
>
> Dolby A was from 1968 or thereabouts and it's probably been used on many
> recordings that you've heard. DBX was a little later, and there was
> another noise reduction system, Telcom, from Telefunken, that never
> really took off.
>
> Dolby noise reduction, for studio work, was generally used throughout
> the whole process, tracking overdubbing, and the mix was almost always
> to tape using Dolby. You say you never liked it yourself, but that may
> be that they only exposure you've had to it where you could evaluate
> what it did to a recording was the Dolby B or C that was used with
> cassettes. That traded off reduced noise for wonky dynamics since there
> wasn't a well adhered-to standard for tape level on cassettes that there
> was for reel-to-reel Dolby tapes. Dolby S attempted to solve that, but
> it was really too late coming to the market and cassettes were already
> on they way out when it was just coming in.

Let me get something straight. Let's take the Ampex MM-1000 recorder. I am guessing, you could record on track, rewind the tape, and play that prerecorded track, while recording on a fresh new track, etc., etc., etc.. Would there be ANY reason to use noise reduction there, other than, maybe inferior noisy tape? I thought that was the primary reason why 70's songs sounded better, because you weren't summing the noise, like when they only had a handful of recording tracks and were forced to "stage" recordings.

Jack

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/26/2015 12:29 PM, JackA wrote:
> Let me get something straight. Let's take the Ampex MM-1000 recorder.
> I am guessing, you could record on track, rewind the tape, and play
> that prerecorded track, while recording on a fresh new track, etc.,
> etc., etc..

Yup. I see that you have a total grasp of the multitrack recording process.

> Would there be ANY reason to use noise reduction there,
> other than, maybe inferior noisy tape?

Well, let's not be too harsh here. There is hiss. That comes from the
tape. Dolby invented his noise reduction process to reduce the
audibility of the tape hiss. It doesn't fix your mic preamps or
microphones or the producer. But, yes, the reason why it became the norm
for multitrack recordings was that the noise goes into the mix like
everything else and they wanted the multitrack recordings not to sound
noisier than the direct-to-mono or stereo recordings of years past. But
the artists and producers wanted to use that newfangled multitrack
thing, so they needed a solution to the tape noise.

> I thought that was the primary
> reason why 70's songs sounded better, because you weren't summing the
> noise, like when they only had a handful of recording tracks and were
> forced to "stage" recordings.

If your problem with multitrack recordings is excessive tape noise,
then, yes, noise reduction can help. But honestly, I think that the
reason why some recordings that were made in a single pass sounded
better than multitracked recordings is that the music just felt better
because everyone was playing together. And either they didn't make any
mistakes, they made a mistake that still fit with the music so it went
through, or they did another take.

In the '70s through the '90s, we learned a lot about how to overcome
both the technical and musical problems with multitracking. Today some
of those techniques have been overridden by the DAW process where you
aren't limited by the hardware to a specific number of tracks, and you
can stack as many as you can stand without adding system noise. In one
sense, it's led to laziness in recording.



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

[JackA]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 4:40:37 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/26/2015 12:29 PM, JackA wrote:
> > Let me get something straight. Let's take the Ampex MM-1000 recorder.
> > I am guessing, you could record on track, rewind the tape, and play
> > that prerecorded track, while recording on a fresh new track, etc.,
> > etc., etc..
>
> Yup. I see that you have a total grasp of the multitrack recording process.
>
> > Would there be ANY reason to use noise reduction there,
> > other than, maybe inferior noisy tape?
>
> Well, let's not be too harsh here. There is hiss. That comes from the
> tape. Dolby invented his noise reduction process to reduce the
> audibility of the tape hiss. It doesn't fix your mic preamps or
> microphones or the producer. But, yes, the reason why it became the norm
> for multitrack recordings was that the noise goes into the mix like
> everything else and they wanted the multitrack recordings not to sound
> noisier than the direct-to-mono or stereo recordings of years past. But
> the artists and producers wanted to use that newfangled multitrack
> thing, so they needed a solution to the tape noise.
>
> > I thought that was the primary
> > reason why 70's songs sounded better, because you weren't summing the
> > noise, like when they only had a handful of recording tracks and were
> > forced to "stage" recordings.
>
> If your problem with multitrack recordings is excessive tape noise,
> then, yes, noise reduction can help. But honestly, I think that the
> reason why some recordings that were made in a single pass sounded
> better than multitracked recordings is that the music just felt better
> because everyone was playing together. And either they didn't make any
> mistakes, they made a mistake that still fit with the music so it went
> through, or they did another take.

Or, maybe, tape tracks were wider initially?

Swinging (Take) 22. You can hear a musician quietly ask, "Is this the same thing?". So, while you could record live, many songs were developed in studios and paying for studio time and all the musicians cost a fortune. Things had to change to compete, since small record companies had their own methods of cost reduction (overdubbing).

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

>
> In the '70s through the '90s, we learned a lot about how to overcome
> both the technical and musical problems with multitracking. Today some
> of those techniques have been overridden by the DAW process where you
> aren't limited by the hardware to a specific number of tracks, and you
> can stack as many as you can stand without adding system noise. In one
> sense, it's led to laziness in recording.

Understood. But as I mentioned, the wide stereo of the 50s and 60s disappeared in the 70's. I have to agree with one of the participants here that mentioned it was common to fix the center and a single stereo channel and just provide some stereo content in the other. As I feel, you harm recordings the closer they are mixed to mono. If it weren't for the (superior) clarity of instruments and/or singing, Stereo would have died quickly.

Anyway, who preferred real-time recordings? - Tom Dowd
Who didn't mind overdubbing? - Al Kooper

Forget sound quality, it was MUCH easier to score hits in the 50s and 60s than later. Why? My guess, radio rid the Big Band music and singers of our parents, and it was time for a LOT of new variety. I was amazed to find recording studios, even one not too far from me, popping up! Some catered to drug use and gained them clients. Granted, we lowered the standard, and anyone and their mother could "sing".

Sorry for rambling.

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/26/2015 5:47 PM, JackA wrote:
> Forget sound quality, it was MUCH easier to score hits in the 50s and 60s than later. Why?

Less competition and more dedicated and faithful listeners. Sound
quality doesn't make hits. Good material, well arranged and performed
does. Also, a vast majority of recordings in that period came from major
labels, so they had the money to do the job right, and the ability to
promote it.

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

[JackA]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 6:15:53 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/26/2015 5:47 PM, JackA wrote:
> > Forget sound quality, it was MUCH easier to score hits in the 50s and 60s than later. Why?
>
> Less competition and more dedicated and faithful listeners. Sound
> quality doesn't make hits. Good material, well arranged and performed
> does. Also, a vast majority of recordings in that period came from major
> labels, so they had the money to do the job right, and the ability to
> promote it.
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Mike, we totally agree one on thing. Yes, sound quality on its own NEVER, EVER sold music.

Like, early on, I heard Pumped Up Kicks, 2011, (Mark) Foster The People. Not even close to what I'd call a great audio sounding tune, but there was a mystery sound to it that intrigued me, and I was right, it charted very well.

I may have shared this story before...

I have multi-tracks to Billy Joel's "Piano Man". I was AMAZED what I heard, had to listen MANY times to absorb it all (instruments). Even gentle cymbal taps by the drummer, like they published half the recording.

Later, a co-worker and I were chatting about Billy Joel. He began reciting lyrics like he wrote them!! I was AMAZED, because I have great difficulty deciphering lyrics. Maybe my mind just phases them out to hear the music, not really sure.

I allowed him to hear my "Piano Man" mix and asked him what was different. After, he said, Billy's vocals sound a little different, and that was it.

Anyway, before the multi-tracks, I purchased some MasterSound gold CDs, one or so of Billy Joel's albums. I (and a friend) were able to decipher some unknown lyrics. Was it due to better sound quality? Maybe a bit, but the thing is, the song was remixed (wider stereo)! So, so much to "Master" sound. Anyway, here's Vic that did the MasterSound CD. You think he's honest?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_udPy2KuXwM

Jack

[geoff]

On 27/06/2015 8:40 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:

> Well, let's not be too harsh here. There is hiss. That comes from the
> tape.

And that is nothing to do with JackAss's supposed 'Inferior Tape'.

geoff

[geoff]

On 27/06/2015 10:46 a.m., JackA wrote:

> Later, a co-worker and I were chatting about Billy Joel. He began
> reciting lyrics like he wrote them!! I was AMAZED, because I have
> great difficulty deciphering lyrics.\

Get better headphones. or ears.

geoff

[JackA]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:56:57 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 27/06/2015 8:40 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> > Well, let's not be too harsh here. There is hiss. That comes from the
> > tape.
>
> And that is nothing to do with JackAss's supposed 'Inferior Tape'.

Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears, and I say it does!!

Jack :-)
>
> geoff

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "> Forget sound quality"

'The **** kinda statement is that?! That's exactly the kind of ****
young aspiring recording artists DON'T need to be reading when
lurking here.


"Sound quality doesn't make hits." Huh??? Rumours was
one of Fleetwood Mac's best albums ever, as well as a hit
generator, and I happen to think it sounds very good. Ditto
Rush's Moving Pictures, Jackson's Off The Wall & Thriller.


"Good material, well arranged and performed.."
No argument there.

[JackA]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 10:43:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote: "> Forget sound quality"
>
> 'The **** kinda statement is that?! That's exactly the kind of ****
> young aspiring recording artists DON'T need to be reading when
> lurking here.

You, not I, said sound quality doesn't make hits!!! So, you best make up YOUR mind.
>
>
> "Sound quality doesn't make hits." Huh??? Rumours was
> one of Fleetwood Mac's best albums ever, as well as a hit
> generator, and I happen to think it sounds very good. Ditto
> Rush's Moving Pictures, Jackson's Off The Wall & Thriller.

So, YOU think Rumours was great sounding. I say, they f'd it up. Should have stopped while ahead. But, no, sound quality was fouled. I will make sure to post what gained me a nice compliment on my site over an album cut. And, just like Heart, it was the addition of a female or females that fans liked, not sound quality.

Jack
>
>
> "Good material, well arranged and performed.."
> No argument there.

[Rick Ruskin]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:29:31 -0700 (PDT), JackA
> wrote:

>On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:56:57 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
<snip>
>
>Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears, and I say it does!!
>
>Jack :-)

"Grammy Award winning ears?" For what?



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

[JackA]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 11:45:32 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:29:31 -0700 (PDT), JackA
> > wrote:
>
> >On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:56:57 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> >Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears, and I say it does!!
> >
> >Jack :-)
>
> "Grammy Award winning ears?" For what?

So, Rick, I see you are in support of Compressor/Limiter equipment, since there's one or more featured on YOUR site.

Just an observation, nothing more.

Jack

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

[Trevor]

On 27/06/2015 9:56 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 27/06/2015 8:40 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>> Well, let's not be too harsh here. There is hiss. That comes from the
>> tape.
>
> And that is nothing to do with JackAss's supposed 'Inferior Tape'.

Well all analog tape was relatively inferior, which is why all noise
reduction schemes were invented in the first place. Not to mention the
necessity for simple record/playback EQ to help reduce noise to even a
minimally acceptable level.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/26/2015 10:29 PM, JackA wrote:
> Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears

I didn't know they gave a Grammy for ears

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

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "You, not I, said sound quality doesn't make hits!!! So, you best make up YOUR mind. "

YOU need to learn to read who I was quoting.
RIVERS made the statement about sound
quality not mattering, and I challenged him.

Don't end up like firefighter Cook from Texas,
Jack.

[Rick Ruskin]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:38:49 -0700 (PDT), JackA
> wrote:

>On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 11:45:32 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:29:31 -0700 (PDT), JackA
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:56:57 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >
>> >Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears, and I say it does!!
>> >
>> >Jack :-)
>>
>> "Grammy Award winning ears?" For what?
>
>So, Rick, I see you are in support of Compressor/Limiter equipment, since there's one or more featured on YOUR site.
>
>Just an observation, nothing more.
>
>Jack

I also sell mic preamps, eq's, and guitars. What do the things listed
on my site have to do with the fact that you have not answered my
question?



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

[None]

< whineybrat @ gmail.com > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rivers wrote: "> Forget sound quality"
>
> 'The **** kinda statement is that?! That's exactly the kind of ****

Isn't that what's known as "filthy diatribe" in dumb****speak? The
next time you whine about "foul language", you can expect to be
reminded of your double-standard hypocrisy, Dumb****.

[JackA]

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 11:03:17 AM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:38:49 -0700 (PDT), JackA
> > wrote:
>
> >On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 11:45:32 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> >> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:29:31 -0700 (PDT), JackA
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:56:57 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >> >
> >> >Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears, and I say it does!!
> >> >
> >> >Jack :-)
> >>
> >> "Grammy Award winning ears?" For what?
> >
> >So, Rick, I see you are in support of Compressor/Limiter equipment, since there's one or more featured on YOUR site.
> >
> >Just an observation, nothing more.
> >
> >Jack
>
> I also sell mic preamps, eq's, and guitars. What do the things listed
> on my site have to do with the fact that you have not answered my
> question?

Well, I know, "Cry Me A River", by Joe Cocker, was remixed. There's one GOOD clue that gives it away. Most likely fouled since day one!! Everyone can mix! Someone fixed what I knew sounded wrong. Isn't that worth a Grammy? :-)

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

[Rick Ruskin]

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 18:01:44 -0700 (PDT), JackA
> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 11:03:17 AM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:38:49 -0700 (PDT), JackA
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 11:45:32 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:29:31 -0700 (PDT), JackA
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:56:57 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
>> >> <snip>
>> >> >
>> >> >Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears, and I say it does!!
>> >> >
>> >> >Jack :-)
>> >>
>> >> "Grammy Award winning ears?" For what?
>> >
>> >So, Rick, I see you are in support of Compressor/Limiter equipment, since there's one or more featured on YOUR site.
>> >
>> >Just an observation, nothing more.
>> >
>> >Jack
>>
>> I also sell mic preamps, eq's, and guitars. What do the things listed
>> on my site have to do with the fact that you have not answered my
>> question?
>
>Well, I know, "Cry Me A River", by Joe Cocker, was remixed. There's one GOOD clue that gives it away. Most likely fouled since day one!! Everyone can mix! Someone fixed what I knew sounded wrong. Isn't that worth a Grammy? :-)
>
>Jack


Not only NOT worth a Grammy but not worth anymore of my time.


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

[JackA]

On Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 11:07:05 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 18:01:44 -0700 (PDT), JackA
> > wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 11:03:17 AM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> >> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:38:49 -0700 (PDT), JackA
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 11:45:32 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:29:31 -0700 (PDT), JackA
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:56:57 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears, and I say it does!!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Jack :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> "Grammy Award winning ears?" For what?
> >> >
> >> >So, Rick, I see you are in support of Compressor/Limiter equipment, since there's one or more featured on YOUR site.
> >> >
> >> >Just an observation, nothing more.
> >> >
> >> >Jack
> >>
> >> I also sell mic preamps, eq's, and guitars. What do the things listed
> >> on my site have to do with the fact that you have not answered my
> >> question?
> >
> >Well, I know, "Cry Me A River", by Joe Cocker, was remixed. There's one GOOD clue that gives it away. Most likely fouled since day one!! Everyone can mix! Someone fixed what I knew sounded wrong. Isn't that worth a Grammy? :-)
> >
> >Jack
>
>
> Not only NOT worth a Grammy but not worth anymore of my time.

Rick, meet Jason!!!

See you later, alligator.

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

[JackA]

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 5:54:29 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/26/2015 10:29 PM, JackA wrote:
> > Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears
>
> I didn't know they gave a Grammy for ears
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Here's your Rumours album, featuring Gold Dust Woman. A decent song, but when I heard WMGK-FM play the "official" version (even though I had it), I nearly vomited. Someone should have slapped Mick Fleetwood on the back of the head, yelling, "ENOUGH!" and let this version fly. Very nice dynamics, clean vocals...

Snippet:
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/golddust.mp3

Andrea Gardner at WMGK-FM tells me it was also on a bootleg compilation, but inferior sound.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA: You heard it played over a RADIO STATION???

Ave Maria! No wonder it sounded dreck to you. Try finding
an original release Rumours CD and then tell us how it sounds.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/30/2015 7:23 PM, JackA wrote:
> Here's your Rumours album, featuring Gold Dust Woman.

Why are you bothering me with this? I have no interest in this music,
regardless of how much you love or hate the recording.

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

[[email protected]]

9:03 PMMike Rivers wrote:
"On 6/30/2015 7:23 PM, JackA wrote:
> Here's your Rumours album, featuring Gold Dust Woman.

Why are you bothering me with this? I have no interest in this music,
regardless of how much you love or hate the recording.
- show quoted text -"


Mike, I WAS the one who breached Rumours. Apparently
JackA didn't make that clear.


Lemme ask you something Mike - seriously: Name at least 3
artists and a song or album by each of them that you actually
like! And in the mean time, give Rumours a spin(or download).
It's mellow, not gangsta, and you might come to enjoy it.

[None]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> Why are you bothering me with this?

You respond to him. You feed him the attention he craves. You get what
you ask for. Scrape him off your boot on the edge of the curb and get
on with whatever else you'd be doing if you weren't dancing to his
tune.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/30/2015 9:43 PM, wrote:
> Lemme ask you something Mike - seriously: Name at least 3
> artists and a song or album by each of them that you actually
> like!

It would be really hard for me to pick a favorite song from any of my
favorite artists, but I like just about anything from Mike Seeger,
Mississippi John Hurt, Doc Watson, Merle Travis, Hank Bradley, Hank
Snow, Hank Williams, Hank Thompson, Uncle Dave Macon, Homer & Jethro,
and Bob Wills.

Is there anything there that hints in the slightest way that I'd like
Rumours?

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

[geoff]

On 1/07/2015 3:19 p.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/30/2015 9:43 PM, wrote:
>> Lemme ask you something Mike - seriously: Name at least 3
>> artists and a song or album by each of them that you actually
>> like!
>
> It would be really hard for me to pick a favorite song from any of my
> favorite artists, but I like just about anything from Mike Seeger,
> Mississippi John Hurt, Doc Watson, Merle Travis, Hank Bradley, Hank
> Snow, Hank Williams, Hank Thompson, Uncle Dave Macon, Homer & Jethro,
> and Bob Wills.
>
> Is there anything there that hints in the slightest way that I'd like
> Rumours?
>


Nothing wrong with any of that Mike, but in a musical sense it could be
suggested that you could possibly benefit from 'getting out a bit more'
;-)

Or maybe you have, and just don't like anything from the last 30 years ;-)

geoff

[Ralph Barone[_2_]]

geoff > wrote:
> On 1/07/2015 3:19 p.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 6/30/2015 9:43 PM, wrote:
>>> Lemme ask you something Mike - seriously: Name at least 3
>>> artists and a song or album by each of them that you actually
>>> like!
>>
>> It would be really hard for me to pick a favorite song from any of my >
>> favorite artists, but I like just about anything from Mike Seeger, >
>> Mississippi John Hurt, Doc Watson, Merle Travis, Hank Bradley, Hank >
>> Snow, Hank Williams, Hank Thompson, Uncle Dave Macon, Homer & Jethro, > and Bob Wills.
>>
>> Is there anything there that hints in the slightest way that I'd like > Rumours?
>>
>
>
> Nothing wrong with any of that Mike, but in a musical sense it could be
> suggested that you could possibly benefit from 'getting out a bit more' ;-)
>
> Or maybe you have, and just don't like anything from the last 30 years ;-)
>
> geoff

Since Rumours is damn near pushing 40, what's your point ;-)

[Ralph Barone[_2_]]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
> On 6/30/2015 9:43 PM, wrote:
>> Lemme ask you something Mike - seriously: Name at least 3
>> artists and a song or album by each of them that you actually
>> like!
>
> It would be really hard for me to pick a favorite song from any of my
> favorite artists, but I like just about anything from Mike Seeger,
> Mississippi John Hurt, Doc Watson, Merle Travis, Hank Bradley, Hank Snow,
> Hank Williams, Hank Thompson, Uncle Dave Macon, Homer & Jethro, and Bob Wills.
>
> Is there anything there that hints in the slightest way that I'd like Rumours?


Listen to this. It's probably your best bet to actually like something from
that album given your tastes.
http://youtu.be/PppUJ_JGq2U

[geoff]

On 1/07/2015 6:17 p.m., Ralph Barone wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>> On 1/07/2015 3:19 p.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> On 6/30/2015 9:43 PM, wrote:
>>>> Lemme ask you something Mike - seriously: Name at least 3
>>>> artists and a song or album by each of them that you actually
>>>> like!
>>>
>>> It would be really hard for me to pick a favorite song from any of my >
>>> favorite artists, but I like just about anything from Mike Seeger, >
>>> Mississippi John Hurt, Doc Watson, Merle Travis, Hank Bradley, Hank >
>>> Snow, Hank Williams, Hank Thompson, Uncle Dave Macon, Homer & Jethro, > and Bob Wills.
>>>
>>> Is there anything there that hints in the slightest way that I'd like > Rumours?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing wrong with any of that Mike, but in a musical sense it could be
>> suggested that you could possibly benefit from 'getting out a bit more' ;-)
>>
>> Or maybe you have, and just don't like anything from the last 30 years ;-)
>>
>> geoff
>
> Since Rumours is damn near pushing 40, what's your point ;-)
>


Time flies when you're having fun. Okay 'half-century' !

geoff

[Trevor]

On 1/07/2015 2:28 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 1/07/2015 3:19 p.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 6/30/2015 9:43 PM, wrote:
>>> Lemme ask you something Mike - seriously: Name at least 3
>>> artists and a song or album by each of them that you actually
>>> like!
>>
>> It would be really hard for me to pick a favorite song from any of my
>> favorite artists, but I like just about anything from Mike Seeger,
>> Mississippi John Hurt, Doc Watson, Merle Travis, Hank Bradley, Hank
>> Snow, Hank Williams, Hank Thompson, Uncle Dave Macon, Homer & Jethro,
>> and Bob Wills.
>>
>> Is there anything there that hints in the slightest way that I'd like
>> Rumours?

Well I like all the artists you list, *and* Fleetwood Mac, so I don't
see them as mutually exclusive.

>
> Nothing wrong with any of that Mike, but in a musical sense it could be
> suggested that you could possibly benefit from 'getting out a bit more' ;-)
>
> Or maybe you have, and just don't like anything from the last 30 years ;-)

Rumours is older than that so should be OK then! :-)

Trevor.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 9:43:13 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> 9:03 PMMike Rivers wrote:
> "On 6/30/2015 7:23 PM, JackA wrote:
> > Here's your Rumours album, featuring Gold Dust Woman.
>
> Why are you bothering me with this? I have no interest in this music,
> regardless of how much you love or hate the recording.
> - show quoted text -"
>
>
> Mike, I WAS the one who breached Rumours. Apparently
> JackA didn't make that clear.

-- Maybe a Google thing. Sorry, Mike, I beg your forgiveness.

-- But YOU, THEKMA, I think your the culprit for my error!!

:-)

Jack
>
>
> Lemme ask you something Mike - seriously: Name at least 3
> artists and a song or album by each of them that you actually
> like! And in the mean time, give Rumours a spin(or download).
> It's mellow, not gangsta, and you might come to enjoy it.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/1/2015 5:21 AM, Trevor wrote:
> Well I like all the artists you list, *and* Fleetwood Mac, so I don't
> see them as mutually exclusive.

Neither do I. But I've been around long enough so that I have been
exposed to a lot of music that, while I don't categorically dislike, I
don't find any reason to pay any further attention to it.

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/1/2015 2:17 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
> Listen to this. It's probably your best bet to actually like something from
> that album given your tastes.

Why should I bother? There's more to listen to now than I have time or
the attention span for. Why is it so important to a few people here that
I listen to a Fleetwood Mac song? I've heard the band before. I have no
reason to hear yet another song from them.

I'm not saying that they're a bad band. Obviously they're been
successful. And I'm sure that their recording history has been
interesting. I just don't have any interest in them.


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

[[email protected]]

JackA, et al: "-- But YOU, THEKMA, I think your the culprit for my error!! "


Jack, look up the work TRUNCATION and write the definition down.

Google TRUNCATES my username. It is "THEKMANROCKS"!!! NOT
"thekma.."!

Sheez, I feel like "V' GER" from Star Trek The Motion Picture. JUST
REMOVE THE GRIME, Kirk!

[JackA]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 9:07:07 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA, et al: "-- But YOU, THEKMA, I think your the culprit for my error!! "
>
>
> Jack, look up the work TRUNCATION and write the definition down.
>
> Google TRUNCATES my username. It is "THEKMANROCKS"!!! NOT
> "thekma.."!

If YOU know your name gets truncated, why not fix it, maybe change name to, Bob, maybe, Jim, maybe, Joe, and if you're one of those kind, maybe Caitlyn?? :-)
>
> Sheez, I feel like "V' GER" from Star Trek The Motion Picture. JUST
> REMOVE THE GRIME, Kirk!

Sorry, lost interest in Star Trek movies, liked the real TV deal!!!

Jack

[JackA]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 8:40:15 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 7/1/2015 2:17 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
> > Listen to this. It's probably your best bet to actually like something from
> > that album given your tastes.
>
> Why should I bother? There's more to listen to now than I have time or
> the attention span for. Why is it so important to a few people here that
> I listen to a Fleetwood Mac song? I've heard the band before. I have no
> reason to hear yet another song from them.
>
> I'm not saying that they're a bad band. Obviously they're been
> successful. And I'm sure that their recording history has been
> interesting. I just don't have any interest in them.

They, as with Heart, would have failed to gain much recognition if it weren't for the fact they added some nice looking female singer(s). That is what gained them popularity!! I mean, I just LOVED the cover of Rumours album with that sweet thing is ballet attire. Ahhhh...

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>It would be really hard for me to pick a favorite song from any of my
>favorite artists, but I like just about anything from Mike Seeger,
>Mississippi John Hurt, Doc Watson, Merle Travis, Hank Bradley, Hank
>Snow, Hank Williams, Hank Thompson, Uncle Dave Macon, Homer & Jethro,
>and Bob Wills.

That reminds me, you should listen to Sloan Wainwright. We had her at
a festival out in Waynesboro and she was amazing, with a very tight backup.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "It would be really hard for me to
pick a favorite song from any of my favorite artists, but
I like just about anything from Mike Seeger,
Mississippi John Hurt, Doc Watson, Merle Travis,
Hank Bradley, Hank Snow, Hank Williams, Hank
Thompson, Uncle Dave Macon, Homer & Jethro, ..."


Well, at least we have Hank Sr. in common! Do
you like anything by Jr?

[Ralph Barone[_2_]]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
> On 7/1/2015 2:17 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
>> Listen to this. It's probably your best bet to actually like something from
>> that album given your tastes.
>
> Why should I bother? There's more to listen to now than I have time or
> the attention span for. Why is it so important to a few people here that
> I listen to a Fleetwood Mac song? I've heard the band before. I have no
> reason to hear yet another song from them.
>
> I'm not saying that they're a bad band. Obviously they're been
> successful. And I'm sure that their recording history has been
> interesting. I just don't have any interest in them.
>


I'm wasn't attempting the Usenet equivalent of holding a gun to your head.
I was just stating that given the list of artists you enjoy, that
particular Fleetwood Mac song might have better odds of being something you
might like. If you don't want to click on the link, it's your call.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:16:20 AM UTC-4, Ralph Barone wrote:
> Mike Rivers > wrote:
> > On 7/1/2015 2:17 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
> >> Listen to this. It's probably your best bet to actually like something from
> >> that album given your tastes.
> >
> > Why should I bother? There's more to listen to now than I have time or
> > the attention span for. Why is it so important to a few people here that
> > I listen to a Fleetwood Mac song? I've heard the band before. I have no
> > reason to hear yet another song from them.
> >
> > I'm not saying that they're a bad band. Obviously they're been
> > successful. And I'm sure that their recording history has been
> > interesting. I just don't have any interest in them.
> >
>
>
> I'm wasn't attempting the Usenet equivalent of holding a gun to your head.
> I was just stating that given the list of artists you enjoy, that
> particular Fleetwood Mac song might have better odds of being something you
> might like. If you don't want to click on the link, it's your call.

I listen briefly to the Chain song. Not sure why claims HQ sound.

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/1/2015 10:59 AM, wrote:
> Well, at least we have Hank Sr. in common! Do
> you like anything by Jr?

If I heard him on the radio, I wouldn't turn him off, but then I
wouldn't be sure I was hearing him, either, until the song was announced
by the DJ. I don't own any records by him.

Oh, and while we're about Hanks, how could I forget Hank Alrich? He's
even still alive as far as I know.

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/1/2015 9:50 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> That reminds me, you should listen to Sloan Wainwright. We had her at
> a festival out in Waynesboro and she was amazing, with a very tight backup.

There are so many of them these days. "Americana" isn't what I like,
though some people think all American folk music is "Americana" and vice
versa. At least I know that you know the difference.

KBCS (Seattle) that I listen to quite a bit just plays the dickens out
of Frayze Ford and I just don't get her at all. She doesn't enunciate
her words well, her "beats" are boring even though she has some good
musicians on the tracks, and her lyrics sparse and repetitive. Maybe
it's just the two or three songs that the station plays, but there's
nothing there that makes me want to investigate her music further, and a
lot that makes me take a few minutes to get away from the speakers and
have some tea.

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 7/1/2015 9:50 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> That reminds me, you should listen to Sloan Wainwright. We had her at
>> a festival out in Waynesboro and she was amazing, with a very tight backup.
>
>There are so many of them these days. "Americana" isn't what I like,
>though some people think all American folk music is "Americana" and vice
>versa. At least I know that you know the difference.

See, I would argue that her work isn't Americana or really any kind of folk
music at all. Mary Cliff may or may not differ.
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 12:04:24 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 7/1/2015 10:59 AM, wrote:
> > Well, at least we have Hank Sr. in common! Do
> > you like anything by Jr?
>
> If I heard him on the radio, I wouldn't turn him off, but then I
> wouldn't be sure I was hearing him, either, until the song was announced
> by the DJ. I don't own any records by him.
>
> Oh, and while we're about Hanks, how could I forget Hank Alrich? He's
> even still alive as far as I know.
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

I'm beginning to see the connection between Hank and yourself.

Where is Hank? MIA?

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/1/2015 12:29 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Sloan Wainwright

Well, she's from the Loudon Wainright clan and I thought the only thing
folky about his music was his style. His songs occasionally gave me a
laugh but there's nothing particularly memorable about a dead skunk
other than that he wrote a song about it. His tribute to Charlie Poole
tribute album seemed like it came from the right part of his heart, but
there wasn't much there there. I'd rather listen to Charlie Poole.

As for Sloan, I saw a ukulele in the photo on the opening page of her
web site. What more can I say? She might put on a good show, but that
isn't necessarily going to lead me to listen to her music again.

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

[John Williamson]

On 01/07/2015 16:59, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:16:20 AM UTC-4, Ralph Barone wrote:
>> I'm wasn't attempting the Usenet equivalent of holding a gun to your head.
>> I was just stating that given the list of artists you enjoy, that
>> particular Fleetwood Mac song might have better odds of being something you
>> might like. If you don't want to click on the link, it's your call.
>
> I listen briefly to the Chain song. Not sure why claims HQ sound.
>
The copy I have is a good sounding recording. How close it is to the
performance I can't say, as I wasn't there on the day.

Its closeness to the original sound is the only way to define a high
quality recording, unless you're a salesman, in which case, it's
anything better than a 64k mp3.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson:

RE: Rumours. JackA might just not be
used to so much space between the
instruments on some of the tracks, like
the Chain, etc.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 2:19:06 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 01/07/2015 16:59, JackA wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:16:20 AM UTC-4, Ralph Barone wrote:
> >> I'm wasn't attempting the Usenet equivalent of holding a gun to your head.
> >> I was just stating that given the list of artists you enjoy, that
> >> particular Fleetwood Mac song might have better odds of being something you
> >> might like. If you don't want to click on the link, it's your call.
> >
> > I listen briefly to the Chain song. Not sure why claims HQ sound.
> >
> The copy I have is a good sounding recording. How close it is to the
> performance I can't say, as I wasn't there on the day.

They pieced songs together, seldom a live performance, maybe two or more recording studios utilized. What gains Audiophile status? It's simple, acoustic guitars!! Like, The Eagles. When the last time you heard someone say - boy, that electric guitar sounds good. Never.

>
> Its closeness to the original sound is the only way to define a high
> quality recording, unless you're a salesman, in which case, it's
> anything better than a 64k mp3.

- You have a point!

Jack

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

[John Williamson]

On 01/07/2015 21:07, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 2:19:06 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 01/07/2015 16:59, JackA wrote:
>>> I listen briefly to the Chain song. Not sure why claims HQ sound.
>>>
>> The copy I have is a good sounding recording. How close it is to the
>> performance I can't say, as I wasn't there on the day.
>
> They pieced songs together, seldom a live performance, maybe two or more recording studios utilized. What gains Audiophile status? It's simple, acoustic guitars!! Like, The Eagles. When the last time you heard someone say - boy, that electric guitar sounds good. Never.
>
Apart from the many times I've heard one being played by a very talented
player in a really good band, with a decent drummer, a good bass player
and an excellent singer. Or when any if the several I've heard were
doing a solo...

Acoustic guitars are good in the right place as are amplified acoustic
guitars using either a pickup or microphone. If you get a really good
player, pushing the limits of their skills and the instrument's
capabilities, I can happily listen to it all day.

A high quality recording carries the nuances of an amazing performance
right through the chain.

Tell me, how do you like the Made In Japan album by Deep Purple? I
reckon it to be one of the best albums ever made. It was made on an 8
track recorder after the record company out a lot of pressure on the
band, who weren't interested in doing an album. You can hear the band
feeding off the audience and vice versa, even in a grotty mp3 version.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:32:58 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 01/07/2015 21:07, JackA wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 2:19:06 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 01/07/2015 16:59, JackA wrote:
> >>> I listen briefly to the Chain song. Not sure why claims HQ sound.
> >>>
> >> The copy I have is a good sounding recording. How close it is to the
> >> performance I can't say, as I wasn't there on the day.
> >
> > They pieced songs together, seldom a live performance, maybe two or more recording studios utilized. What gains Audiophile status? It's simple, acoustic guitars!! Like, The Eagles. When the last time you heard someone say - boy, that electric guitar sounds good. Never.
> >
> Apart from the many times I've heard one being played by a very talented
> player in a really good band, with a decent drummer, a good bass player
> and an excellent singer. Or when any if the several I've heard were
> doing a solo...
>
> Acoustic guitars are good in the right place as are amplified acoustic
> guitars using either a pickup or microphone. If you get a really good
> player, pushing the limits of their skills and the instrument's
> capabilities, I can happily listen to it all day.
>
> A high quality recording carries the nuances of an amazing performance
> right through the chain.
>
> Tell me, how do you like the Made In Japan album by Deep Purple? I
> reckon it to be one of the best albums ever made. It was made on an 8
> track recorder after the record company out a lot of pressure on the
> band, who weren't interested in doing an album. You can hear the band
> feeding off the audience and vice versa, even in a grotty mp3 version.

John, I know of the album, but never heard it!!! I'll have to check it out one day!

Ever hear Smoke On The Water remix? This is where analog mixing and digital refinement join forces. I may have shortened this. Wish they had kept (mixed) the vocals out of the ending though (break a leg, etc.). Like the "damn-it!" ending. Guessing a guitar string break!....

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

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

[geoff]

On 2/07/2015 3:59 a.m., JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:16:20 AM UTC-4, Ralph Barone wrote:
>> Mike Rivers > wrote:
>>> On 7/1/2015 2:17 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
>>>> Listen to this. It's probably your best bet to actually like something from
>>>> that album given your tastes.
>>>
>>> Why should I bother? There's more to listen to now than I have time or
>>> the attention span for. Why is it so important to a few people here that
>>> I listen to a Fleetwood Mac song? I've heard the band before. I have no
>>> reason to hear yet another song from them.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying that they're a bad band. Obviously they're been
>>> successful. And I'm sure that their recording history has been
>>> interesting. I just don't have any interest in them.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm wasn't attempting the Usenet equivalent of holding a gun to your head.
>> I was just stating that given the list of artists you enjoy, that
>> particular Fleetwood Mac song might have better odds of being something you
>> might like. If you don't want to click on the link, it's your call.
>
> I listen briefly to the Chain song. Not sure why claims HQ sound.

The sound is decidedly LQ. There is a distinct lack of 3kHz.

geoff

[geoff]

On 2/07/2015 4:10 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 7/1/2015 9:50 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> That reminds me, you should listen to Sloan Wainwright. We had her at
>> a festival out in Waynesboro and she was amazing, with a very tight
>> backup.
>
> There are so many of them these days. "Americana" isn't what I like,
> though some people think all American folk music is "Americana" and vice
> versa. At least I know that you know the difference.
>
> KBCS (Seattle) that I listen to quite a bit just plays the dickens out
> of Frayze Ford and I just don't get her at all. She doesn't enunciate
> her words well, her "beats" are boring even though she has some good
> musicians on the tracks, and her lyrics sparse and repetitive. Maybe
> it's just the two or three songs that the station plays, but there's
> nothing there that makes me want to investigate her music further, and a
> lot that makes me take a few minutes to get away from the speakers and
> have some tea.
>


Nora (especially 'earlier stuff') ? Fantastic recording. And the music
too, if that's your kinda thing. I guess that would largely classify as
'Americana' , and I'm not even American !

geoff

[JackA]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 6:11:04 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 2/07/2015 3:59 a.m., JackA wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:16:20 AM UTC-4, Ralph Barone wrote:
> >> Mike Rivers > wrote:
> >>> On 7/1/2015 2:17 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
> >>>> Listen to this. It's probably your best bet to actually like something from
> >>>> that album given your tastes.
> >>>
> >>> Why should I bother? There's more to listen to now than I have time or
> >>> the attention span for. Why is it so important to a few people here that
> >>> I listen to a Fleetwood Mac song? I've heard the band before. I have no
> >>> reason to hear yet another song from them.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not saying that they're a bad band. Obviously they're been
> >>> successful. And I'm sure that their recording history has been
> >>> interesting. I just don't have any interest in them.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm wasn't attempting the Usenet equivalent of holding a gun to your head.
> >> I was just stating that given the list of artists you enjoy, that
> >> particular Fleetwood Mac song might have better odds of being something you
> >> might like. If you don't want to click on the link, it's your call.
> >
> > I listen briefly to the Chain song. Not sure why claims HQ sound.
>
> The sound is decidedly LQ. There is a distinct lack of 3kHz.

Enough from you. For me, I had to find the answer to my own discovery since, ahem, engineers, don't know or can't clearly hear how it is advantageous!!

Thank you for understanding!!

Jack
>
> geoff

[John Williamson]

On 01/07/2015 21:41, JackA wrote:

> Ever hear Smoke On The Water remix? This is where analog mixing and digital refinement join forces. I may have shortened this. Wish they had kept (mixed) the vocals out of the ending though (break a leg, etc.). Like the "damn-it!" ending. Guessing a guitar string break!....
>
*Which* Smoke on the Water remix? There were many different version
released by the band that I have on various media here. I've heard the
LP and CD versions of the live recording. As well as a couple of other
performances and remasterings and remixes...


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 2:03:02 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 01/07/2015 21:41, JackA wrote:
>
> > Ever hear Smoke On The Water remix? This is where analog mixing and digital refinement join forces. I may have shortened this. Wish they had kept (mixed) the vocals out of the ending though (break a leg, etc.). Like the "damn-it!" ending. Guessing a guitar string break!....
> >
> *Which* Smoke on the Water remix? There were many different version
> released by the band that I have on various media here. I've heard the
> LP and CD versions of the live recording. As well as a couple of other
> performances and remasterings and remixes...

I've heard only one, and that one became the (US) hit. So, I'm talking about the hit version. Not live, not remake, not edited, not nothing, the hit version. I posted a link for you to hear the hit version remixed!!! :-)

Maybe the remastering is so poor or your other collected ones, you thought it's a different version!! :)

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

[John Williamson]

On 02/07/2015 13:22, JackA wrote:
> On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 2:03:02 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 01/07/2015 21:41, JackA wrote:
>>
>>> Ever hear Smoke On The Water remix? This is where analog mixing and digital refinement join forces. I may have shortened this. Wish they had kept (mixed) the vocals out of the ending though (break a leg, etc.). Like the "damn-it!" ending. Guessing a guitar string break!....
>>>
>> *Which* Smoke on the Water remix? There were many different version
>> released by the band that I have on various media here. I've heard the
>> LP and CD versions of the live recording. As well as a couple of other
>> performances and remasterings and remixes...
>
> I've heard only one, and that one became the (US) hit. So, I'm talking about the hit version. Not live, not remake, not edited, not nothing, the hit version. I posted a link for you to hear the hit version remixed!!! :-)
>
Ah, you mean the single. Otherwise known as the album track from the
Machine Head LP.

The live versions are much more fun to listen to.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 9:29:55 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 02/07/2015 13:22, JackA wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 2:03:02 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 01/07/2015 21:41, JackA wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ever hear Smoke On The Water remix? This is where analog mixing and digital refinement join forces. I may have shortened this. Wish they had kept (mixed) the vocals out of the ending though (break a leg, etc.). Like the "damn-it!" ending. Guessing a guitar string break!....
> >>>
> >> *Which* Smoke on the Water remix? There were many different version
> >> released by the band that I have on various media here. I've heard the
> >> LP and CD versions of the live recording. As well as a couple of other
> >> performances and remasterings and remixes...
> >
> > I've heard only one, and that one became the (US) hit. So, I'm talking about the hit version. Not live, not remake, not edited, not nothing, the hit version. I posted a link for you to hear the hit version remixed!!! :-)
> >
> Ah, you mean the single. Otherwise known as the album track from the
> Machine Head LP.

Correct!!!!

>
> The live versions are much more fun to listen to.

I prefer studio recordings, don't have people yelling and screaming!! Reminds me too much of vinyl ticks and pops, just noise!!

Jack

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

[[email protected]]

JackA:

I prefer studio too - except in cases where
I grew up hearing the live version. Peter Frampton
comes to mind(the radio plays only the live cuts).
Hearing the studios of "Show Me The Way" and
"Baby I Love Your Way" was more of a revelation
to me - interesting, but not how I'm used to
hearing them.

[JackA]

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 10:18:15 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA:
>
> I prefer studio too - except in cases where
> I grew up hearing the live version. Peter Frampton
> comes to mind(the radio plays only the live cuts).
> Hearing the studios of "Show Me The Way" and
> "Baby I Love Your Way" was more of a revelation
> to me - interesting, but not how I'm used to
> hearing them.

Well, FM didn't bother with the Teen version of Show Me The Way, I was glad to find and hear the studio version on CD!

Like, FM didn't care for love songs. On FM you'd hear the flip side of Elton's - Your Song, that was Take Me To The Pilot.

Just like, Kiss, Rock & Roll All Night, both live and studio versions I remember from (AM) radio.

Snippet

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/rocknroll-s.mp3

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/2/2015 10:57 AM, JackA wrote:
> On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 10:18:15 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>> JackA:
>>
>> I prefer studio too - except in cases where
>> I grew up hearing the live version. Peter Frampton
>> comes to mind(the radio plays only the live cuts).
>> Hearing the studios of "Show Me The Way" and
>> "Baby I Love Your Way" was more of a revelation
>> to me - interesting, but not how I'm used to
>> hearing them.
>
> Well, FM didn't bother with the Teen version of Show Me The Way, I was glad to find and hear the studio version on CD!
>
> Like, FM didn't care for love songs. On FM you'd hear the flip side of Elton's - Your Song, that was Take Me To The Pilot.
>
> Just like, Kiss, Rock & Roll All Night, both live and studio versions I remember from (AM) radio.
>
> Snippet
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/rocknroll-s.mp3
>
> Jack
>
Can you guys find some other forum to discuss this in? This is
rec.audio.pro (a Usenet newsgroup). If you want to talk about production
and engineering, OK, but most of us don't care about your personal taste
in music or your extensive knowledge of pop song alternate mixes. We
know that the record companies often make several mixes of a song
throughout its lifetime, for different markets and different
distributions. Nothing to see here. Move on.

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

[JackA]

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 1:10:23 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 7/2/2015 10:57 AM, JackA wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 10:18:15 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> >> JackA:
> >>
> >> I prefer studio too - except in cases where
> >> I grew up hearing the live version. Peter Frampton
> >> comes to mind(the radio plays only the live cuts).
> >> Hearing the studios of "Show Me The Way" and
> >> "Baby I Love Your Way" was more of a revelation
> >> to me - interesting, but not how I'm used to
> >> hearing them.
> >
> > Well, FM didn't bother with the Teen version of Show Me The Way, I was glad to find and hear the studio version on CD!
> >
> > Like, FM didn't care for love songs. On FM you'd hear the flip side of Elton's - Your Song, that was Take Me To The Pilot.
> >
> > Just like, Kiss, Rock & Roll All Night, both live and studio versions I remember from (AM) radio.
> >
> > Snippet
> >
> > http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/rocknroll-s.mp3
> >
> > Jack
> >
> Can you guys find some other forum to discuss this in? This is
> rec.audio.pro (a Usenet newsgroup). If you want to talk about production
> and engineering, OK, but most of us don't care about your personal taste
> in music or your extensive knowledge of pop song alternate mixes. We
> know that the record companies often make several mixes of a song
> throughout its lifetime, for different markets and different
> distributions. Nothing to see here. Move on.
>

Mike Rivers wrote:
"Well, she's from the Loudon Wainright clan and I thought the only thing
folky about his music was his style. His songs occasionally gave me a
laugh but there's nothing particularly memorable about a dead skunk
other than that he wrote a song about it. His tribute to Charlie Poole
tribute album seemed like it came from the right part of his heart, but
there wasn't much there there. I'd rather listen to Charlie Poole.

As for Sloan, I saw a ukulele in the photo on the opening page of her
web site. What more can I say? She might put on a good show, but that
isn't necessarily going to lead me to listen to her music again".

Grow up, Mike.

Jack

[Trevor]

On 3/07/2015 3:10 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>We know that the record companies often make several mixes of
>a song throughout its lifetime, for different markets and
>different distributions.

It's mainly to sell a few more copies and make a few more dollars!

Trevor.

[JackA]

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 12:36:41 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> On 3/07/2015 3:10 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> >We know that the record companies often make several mixes of
> >a song throughout its lifetime, for different markets and
> >different distributions.
>
> It's mainly to sell a few more copies and make a few more dollars!

Without Audio Compact Disc, a TON of material would have never been released.

Like, The Doors, Rider On The Storm, was remixed, but offered in original stereo mix, too.

Some of Foreigner's songs were remixed, too, as a Wal-Mart special. Shame they are too loud for me to appreciate.

Today, you'll find different mixes, but often too wild for my ears. However, Maroon 5, This Love, comes in a variety of likable flavors.

But, really, the RockBand multi-tracks brings to life what could have been released, but probably never will be.

Jack
>
> Trevor.