Modifying Past Music with DAS

[JackA]

DAS, of course, is Digital Audio Software. Once named DAW, but as Scott mentioned, no longer is any external hardware needed, so "Workstation" is old school, extinct, etc..

I enjoy competing with sound/audio quality. I do not make friends, because I highlight that their music collection sounds dull, puts people asleep. Mastering by the should be renamed, Masterbating, because the "Pros" dig the money they receive for their ill audio work, really get off on it.

Anyway, if the "Pros" here with their Alzheimer's remember this song, it is a nice song. An instrumental, a thing of the past, because lazy people no longer play musical instruments, little talent, leaving instrumentals a thing of US History!!!

The Chantays - Pipeline (1963). Believe it was recorded "live", unlike, for example, The Beatles, where overdubbing was necessary for their success!....

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

Jack

[ssinzig]

JackA wrote:
> DAS, of course, is Digital Audio Software. Once named DAW, but as
> Scott mentioned, no longer is any external hardware needed, so
> "Workstation" is old school, extinct, etc..
>
> I enjoy competing with sound/audio quality. I do not make friends,
> because I highlight that their music collection sounds dull, puts
> people asleep. Mastering by the should be renamed, Masterbating,
> because the "Pros" dig the money they receive for their ill audio
> work, really get off on it.
>
> Anyway, if the "Pros" here with their Alzheimer's remember this song,
> it is a nice song. An instrumental, a thing of the past, because lazy
> people no longer play musical instruments, little talent, leaving
> instrumentals a thing of US History!!!
>
> The Chantays - Pipeline (1963). Believe it was recorded "live",
> unlike, for example, The Beatles, where overdubbing was necessary for
> their success!...
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/pipeline.mp3
>
> Jack

So your "DAS" has no hardware at all; and violates the laws of physics
with no speakers, visual displays, microphones, hard disks or other
storage devices?

The pros should be concerned.

What a putz!

S.

[JackA]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 4:37:49 PM UTC-5, ssinzig wrote:
> JackA wrote:
> > DAS, of course, is Digital Audio Software. Once named DAW, but as
> > Scott mentioned, no longer is any external hardware needed, so
> > "Workstation" is old school, extinct, etc..
> >
> > I enjoy competing with sound/audio quality. I do not make friends,
> > because I highlight that their music collection sounds dull, puts
> > people asleep. Mastering by the should be renamed, Masterbating,
> > because the "Pros" dig the money they receive for their ill audio
> > work, really get off on it.
> >
> > Anyway, if the "Pros" here with their Alzheimer's remember this song,
> > it is a nice song. An instrumental, a thing of the past, because lazy
> > people no longer play musical instruments, little talent, leaving
> > instrumentals a thing of US History!!!
> >
> > The Chantays - Pipeline (1963). Believe it was recorded "live",
> > unlike, for example, The Beatles, where overdubbing was necessary for
> > their success!...
> >
> > http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/pipeline.mp3
> >
> > Jack
>
> So your "DAS" has no hardware at all; and violates the laws of physics
> with no speakers, visual displays, microphones, hard disks or other
> storage devices?
>
> The pros should be concerned.

Know any?

>
> What a putz!
>
> S.

Cool, I got a strange named groupie!

Thanks for your input!!!

Jack

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 06-11-2015 14:07, JackA wrote:

> DAS, of course, is Digital Audio Software. Once named DAW, but as Scott mentioned, no longer is any external hardware needed, so "Workstation" is old school, extinct, etc..

Workstation is a special class of computer.

> Jack

- Peter Larsen

[JackA]

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 12:57:22 AM UTC-5, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 06-11-2015 14:07, JackA wrote:
>
> > DAS, of course, is Digital Audio Software. Once named DAW, but as Scott mentioned, no longer is any external hardware needed, so "Workstation" is old school, extinct, etc..
>
> Workstation is a special class of computer.
Can you show me one?

Jack
>
> > Jack
>
> - Peter Larsen

[ssinzig]

JackA wrote:
> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 4:37:49 PM UTC-5, ssinzig wrote:
>> JackA wrote:
>>> DAS, of course, is Digital Audio Software. Once named DAW, but as
>>> Scott mentioned, no longer is any external hardware needed, so
>>> "Workstation" is old school, extinct, etc..
>>>
>>> I enjoy competing with sound/audio quality. I do not make friends,
>>> because I highlight that their music collection sounds dull, puts
>>> people asleep. Mastering by the should be renamed, Masterbating,
>>> because the "Pros" dig the money they receive for their ill audio
>>> work, really get off on it.
>>>
>>> Anyway, if the "Pros" here with their Alzheimer's remember this song,
>>> it is a nice song. An instrumental, a thing of the past, because lazy
>>> people no longer play musical instruments, little talent, leaving
>>> instrumentals a thing of US History!!!
>>>
>>> The Chantays - Pipeline (1963). Believe it was recorded "live",
>>> unlike, for example, The Beatles, where overdubbing was necessary for
>>> their success!...
>>>
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/pipeline.mp3
>>>
>>> Jack
>>
>> So your "DAS" has no hardware at all; and violates the laws of physics
>> with no speakers, visual displays, microphones, hard disks or other
>> storage devices?
>>
>> The pros should be concerned.
>
> Know any?
>
>>
>> What a putz!
>>
>> S.
>
> Cool, I got a strange named groupie!
>
> Thanks for your input!!!
>
> Jack
>
>

Ah, I see what you did there.

I responded to your ridiculous post and now you have "hooked" me; I am
your "groupie". I gave the thing the attention that it craves.

You are not interested in real conversation and discussion, you have
revealed yourself to be a troll. You outed yourself, Troll.

My apologies to the more earnest participants in this group for feeding
the Troll.

S.

[None]

"ssinzig" > wrote in message
...
> You are not interested in real conversation and discussion, you have
> revealed yourself to be a troll. You outed yourself, Troll.
>
> My apologies to the more earnest participants in this group for
> feeding the Troll.

Yes, he's a well known cancer in this group. You may have to use the
edge of the curb to scrape him off your boot-sole; it's about the only
thing he's worthy of.

[Gareth Magennis]

"JackA" wrote in message
...

DAS, of course, is Digital Audio Software. Once named DAW, but as Scott
mentioned, no longer is any external hardware needed, so "Workstation" is
old school, extinct, etc..

I enjoy competing with sound/audio quality. I do not make friends, because I
highlight that their music collection sounds dull, puts people asleep.
Mastering by the should be renamed, Masterbating, because the "Pros" dig the
money they receive for their ill audio work, really get off on it.

Anyway, if the "Pros" here with their Alzheimer's remember this song, it is
a nice song. An instrumental, a thing of the past, because lazy people no
longer play musical instruments, little talent, leaving instrumentals a
thing of US History!!!

The Chantays - Pipeline (1963). Believe it was recorded "live", unlike, for
example, The Beatles, where overdubbing was necessary for their success!...

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

Jack






One day, Jack will have an Epiphany.
That Epiphany will be that, all along, it's not been the mixes that sound
dull, it's actually his own ears/brain system that lack the capacity to hear
certain frequencies any more.

Trouble is, he will be dead by then, having lead a large part of his life
none the wiser.


Of course he will deny such a thing, as his ears are currently giving him
the evidence he wants, and he wants to believe that evidence, rather than
anything postulated by anyone else.




Gareth.
(Not quite deaf yet, but I know my limitations and how to cope with them)

[Gareth Magennis]

Oh, here's someone's description of an Epiphany, quite amusing.

To me, at least.



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

[JackA]

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 10:58:10 AM UTC-5, ssinzig wrote:
> JackA wrote:
> > On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 4:37:49 PM UTC-5, ssinzig wrote:
> >> JackA wrote:
> >>> DAS, of course, is Digital Audio Software. Once named DAW, but as
> >>> Scott mentioned, no longer is any external hardware needed, so
> >>> "Workstation" is old school, extinct, etc..
> >>>
> >>> I enjoy competing with sound/audio quality. I do not make friends,
> >>> because I highlight that their music collection sounds dull, puts
> >>> people asleep. Mastering by the should be renamed, Masterbating,
> >>> because the "Pros" dig the money they receive for their ill audio
> >>> work, really get off on it.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, if the "Pros" here with their Alzheimer's remember this song,
> >>> it is a nice song. An instrumental, a thing of the past, because lazy
> >>> people no longer play musical instruments, little talent, leaving
> >>> instrumentals a thing of US History!!!
> >>>
> >>> The Chantays - Pipeline (1963). Believe it was recorded "live",
> >>> unlike, for example, The Beatles, where overdubbing was necessary for
> >>> their success!...
> >>>
> >>> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/pipeline.mp3
> >>>
> >>> Jack
> >>
> >> So your "DAS" has no hardware at all; and violates the laws of physics
> >> with no speakers, visual displays, microphones, hard disks or other
> >> storage devices?
> >>
> >> The pros should be concerned.
> >
> > Know any?
> >
> >>
> >> What a putz!
> >>
> >> S.
> >
> > Cool, I got a strange named groupie!
> >
> > Thanks for your input!!!
> >
> > Jack
> >
> >
>
> Ah, I see what you did there.
>
> I gave the thing the attention that it craves.


I gave the thing your attention craves?
Is that what you meant to write?

Jack

[JackA]

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 3:33:02 PM UTC-5, gareth magennis wrote:
> Oh, here's someone's description of an Epiphany, quite amusing.
>
> To me, at least.
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUfMdoiDgLc

Too much profanity.

"Remastering is the term we use to describe the process of taking an old, analogue recording, for example something made for vinyl LP in the 1960s, and preparing it for release on a modern digital format".

http://www.sinfinimusic.com/uk/features/blogs/ask-the-expert/abbey-road-studios-on-remastering-the-classics

What happened to the 50's, 70's etc.?

Jack

[geoff]

On 9/11/2015 3:12 p.m., JackA wrote:
> On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 3:33:02 PM UTC-5, gareth magennis wrote:
>> Oh, here's someone's description of an Epiphany, quite amusing.
>>
>> To me, at least.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUfMdoiDgLc
> Too much profanity.
>
> "Remastering is the term we use to describe the process of taking an old, analogue recording, for example something made for vinyl LP in the 1960s, and preparing it for release on a modern digital format".
>
> http://www.sinfinimusic.com/uk/features/blogs/ask-the-expert/abbey-road-studios-on-remastering-the-classics
>
> What happened to the 50's, 70's etc.?
>
> Jack
>

Comprehend what "for example" means ?

Still can't decide if you are a troll or a ****wit.

geoff

[JackA]

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 9:27:32 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 9/11/2015 3:12 p.m., JackA wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 3:33:02 PM UTC-5, gareth magennis wrote:
> >> Oh, here's someone's description of an Epiphany, quite amusing.
> >>
> >> To me, at least.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUfMdoiDgLc
> > Too much profanity.
> >
> > "Remastering is the term we use to describe the process of taking an old, analogue recording, for example something made for vinyl LP in the 1960s, and preparing it for release on a modern digital format".
> >
> > http://www.sinfinimusic.com/uk/features/blogs/ask-the-expert/abbey-road-studios-on-remastering-the-classics
> >
> > What happened to the 50's, 70's etc.?
> >
> > Jack
> >
>
> Comprehend what "for example" means ?
>
> Still can't decide if you are a troll or a ****wit.

Heck, you can't decipher a great recording from a rotten one.

Jack

>
> geoff

[PStamler]

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 8:59:28 PM UTC-6, JackA wrote:


> > Still can't decide if you are a troll or a ****wit.
>
> Heck, you can't decipher a great recording from a rotten one.

Do not (further) feed the troll.

Peace,
Paul

[John Williamson]

On 09/11/2015 02:27, geoff wrote:
> On 9/11/2015 3:12 p.m., JackA wrote:

>> What happened to the 50's, 70's etc.?
>>
>> Jack
>>
>
> Comprehend what "for example" means ?
>
> Still can't decide if you are a troll or a ****wit.
>
It's both. A trolling, tone deaf, ****wit.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 1:05:13 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 09/11/2015 02:27, geoff wrote:
> > On 9/11/2015 3:12 p.m., JackA wrote:
>
> >> What happened to the 50's, 70's etc.?
> >>
> >> Jack
> >>
> >
> > Comprehend what "for example" means ?
> >
> > Still can't decide if you are a troll or a ****wit.
> >
> It's both. A trolling, tone deaf, ****wit.

Yawn. I guess I'll never top your gifted talent!

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

[JackA]

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 10:53:55 PM UTC-5, PStamler wrote:
> On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 8:59:28 PM UTC-6, JackA wrote:
>
>
> > > Still can't decide if you are a troll or a ****wit.
> >
> > Heck, you can't decipher a great recording from a rotten one.
>
> Do not (further) feed the troll.

At least I bring topics to this group, unlike you freeloaders.

Jack

>
> Peace,
> Paul

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 09-11-2015 03:59, JackA wrote:

> On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 9:27:32 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:

....

> Heck, you can't decipher a great recording from a rotten one.

Did you ever actually record anything?

- Peter Larsen

> Jack
>
>>
>> geoff
>

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 09-11-2015 07:05, John Williamson wrote:

> On 09/11/2015 02:27, geoff wrote:

>> Still can't decide if you are a troll or a ****wit.

> It's both. A trolling, tone deaf, ****wit.

I shall politely refrain from disagreeing.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[JackA]

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 7:38:34 AM UTC-5, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 09-11-2015 03:59, JackA wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 9:27:32 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Heck, you can't decipher a great recording from a rotten one.
>
> Did you ever actually record anything?

Who hasn't?

Jack

>
> - Peter Larsen
>
> > Jack
> >
> >>
> >> geoff
> >

[John Williamson]

On 09/11/2015 10:29, JackA wrote:
> On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 1:05:13 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 09/11/2015 02:27, geoff wrote:
>>> On 9/11/2015 3:12 p.m., JackA wrote:
>>
>>>> What happened to the 50's, 70's etc.?
>>>>
>>>> Jack
>>>>
>>>
>>> Comprehend what "for example" means ?
>>>
>>> Still can't decide if you are a troll or a ****wit.
>>>
>> It's both. A trolling, tone deaf, ****wit.
>
> Yawn. I guess I'll never top your gifted talent!
>
This is true.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 10:15:06 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 09/11/2015 10:29, JackA wrote:
> > On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 1:05:13 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 09/11/2015 02:27, geoff wrote:
> >>> On 9/11/2015 3:12 p.m., JackA wrote:
> >>
> >>>> What happened to the 50's, 70's etc.?
> >>>>
> >>>> Jack
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Comprehend what "for example" means ?
> >>>
> >>> Still can't decide if you are a troll or a ****wit.
> >>>
> >> It's both. A trolling, tone deaf, ****wit.
> >
> > Yawn. I guess I'll never top your gifted talent!
> >
> This is true.

You people just don't drop your guard!!

I can run with the best of ya!

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 09-11-2015 14:30, JackA wrote:
> On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 7:38:34 AM UTC-5, Peter Larsen wrote:
>> On 09-11-2015 03:59, JackA wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 9:27:32 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Heck, you can't decipher a great recording from a rotten one.
>>
>> Did you ever actually record anything?
>
> Who hasn't?

If you have any experience with actual sound recording, then please
describe it.

> Jack

- Peter Larsen

[JackA]

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 3:16:59 PM UTC-5, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 09-11-2015 14:30, JackA wrote:
> > On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 7:38:34 AM UTC-5, Peter Larsen wrote:
> >> On 09-11-2015 03:59, JackA wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 9:27:32 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> Heck, you can't decipher a great recording from a rotten one.
> >>
> >> Did you ever actually record anything?
> >
> > Who hasn't?
>
> If you have any experience with actual sound recording, then please
> describe it.

Am I on trial?

I am just good, trust me.

An unlike Gareth, my hearing is fine!

Thanks. Let's move on.

Jack
>
> > Jack
>
> - Peter Larsen

[John Williamson]

On 09/11/2015 21:09, JackA wrote:
> On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 3:16:59 PM UTC-5, Peter Larsen wrote:
>> If you have any experience with actual sound recording, then please
>> describe it.
>
> Am I on trial?
>
No, but if you keep on boasting about how good you are, it's only
reasonable to expect you to show some evidence of that. Either that or STFU.

> I am just good, trust me.
>
We have yet to hear any evidence of you even reaching a mediocre standard.

> An unlike Gareth, my hearing is fine!
>
Then why do you apparently find it impossible to produce any reasonable
or, for preference good, sounding mixes here? Have you bought a decent,
accurate pair of headphones yet?


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 09-11-2015 22:09, JackA wrote:

>> If you have any experience with actual sound recording, then please
>> describe it.

> Am I on trial?

To some extent yes.

> I am just good, trust me.

Well, you started trustworthy when you arrived. We are a kind lot here.
You have since taken great care to loose all trust you ever had and then
some.

> An unlike Gareth, my hearing is fine!

Hearing and the ability to listen is about more than the threshold curve.

> Thanks. Let's move on.

You say you are a fine recordist. Examples or references please, a
simple chamber music recording of a string ensemble will do fine.

Put up or shut up I think the american way of saying it is.

> Jack

- Peter Larsen

[None]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k...
> Put up or shut up I think the american way of saying it is.

You might just as well try to teach dog**** not to stink.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 7:31:31 AM UTC-5, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 09-11-2015 22:09, JackA wrote:
>
> >> If you have any experience with actual sound recording, then please
> >> describe it.
>
> > Am I on trial?
>
> To some extent yes.
>
> > I am just good, trust me.
>
> Well, you started trustworthy when you arrived. We are a kind lot here.
> You have since taken great care to loose all trust you ever had and then
> some.

On of the most misspelled words and/or used incorrectly: insure vs ensure, lose vs loose, to vs too. I could go on and criticize, but I won't, since I learned a lot while spending time in usenet.

Look at YOU people, worried about sound quality, while I say it more content than sound quality that sells music, but you folks keep spinning your wheels. If you want to hear US Top 40 hits that sound audio ill, just ask!

>
> > An unlike Gareth, my hearing is fine!
>
> Hearing and the ability to listen is about more than the threshold curve.
>
> > Thanks. Let's move on.
>
> You say you are a fine recordist.

Can we replay the tape, I don't recall claiming that.
However, if I were a recordist, I would excel, period.
That is why I have problems with remastered CDs, they don't sound correct, or at least, sounding superior to vinyl counterparts. One "regular" participant here, while you others were pouncing on me (from day one), heard I have something to offer. I won't mention his name.

Examples or references please, a
> simple chamber music recording of a string ensemble will do fine.
>
> Put up or shut up I think the american way of saying it is.

Feel free to visit my web site, the proof is in the pudding.

Peace; you, too, John W.!

Jack
>
> > Jack
>
> - Peter Larsen

[ssinzig]

JackA wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 7:31:31 AM UTC-5, Peter Larsen
> wrote:
>> On 09-11-2015 22:09, JackA wrote:
>>
>>>> If you have any experience with actual sound recording, then
>>>> please describe it.
>>
>>> Am I on trial?
>>
>> To some extent yes.
>>
>>> I am just good, trust me.
>>
>> Well, you started trustworthy when you arrived. We are a kind lot
>> here. You have since taken great care to loose all trust you ever
>> had and then some.
>
> On of the most misspelled words and/or used incorrectly: insure vs
> ensure, lose vs loose, to vs too. I could go on and criticize, but I
> won't, since I learned a lot while spending time in usenet.
>
> Look at YOU people, worried about sound quality, while I say it more
> content than sound quality that sells music, but you folks keep
> spinning your wheels. If you want to hear US Top 40 hits that sound
> audio ill, just ask!
>
>>
>>> An unlike Gareth, my hearing is fine!
>>
>> Hearing and the ability to listen is about more than the threshold
>> curve.
>>
>>> Thanks. Let's move on.
>>
>> You say you are a fine recordist.
>
> Can we replay the tape, I don't recall claiming that. However, if I
> were a recordist, I would excel, period. That is why I have problems
> with remastered CDs, they don't sound correct, or at least, sounding
> superior to vinyl counterparts. One "regular" participant here, while
> you others were pouncing on me (from day one), heard I have something
> to offer. I won't mention his name.
>
> Examples or references please, a
>> simple chamber music recording of a string ensemble will do fine.
>>
>> Put up or shut up I think the american way of saying it is.
>
> Feel free to visit my web site, the proof is in the pudding.
>
> Peace; you, too, John W.!
>
> Jack
>>
>>> Jack
>>
>> - Peter Larsen
>

Not only an unrepentant Troll but a liar. You said --

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 7:38:34 AM UTC-5, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 09-11-2015 03:59, JackA wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 9:27:32 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Heck, you can't decipher a great recording from a rotten one.
>
> Did you ever actually record anything?

Who hasn't?

Jack


-- But you don't recall claiming to be a fine recordist.

Arny K? Is that you?

S.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 1:48:02 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 09/11/2015 21:09, JackA wrote:
> > On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 3:16:59 PM UTC-5, Peter Larsen wrote:
> >> If you have any experience with actual sound recording, then please
> >> describe it.
> >
> > Am I on trial?
> >
> No, but if you keep on boasting about how good you are, it's only
> reasonable to expect you to show some evidence of that. Either that or STFU.
>
> > I am just good, trust me.
> >
> We have yet to hear any evidence of you even reaching a mediocre standard.

We? You the spokesperson for this group!!??

>
> > An unlike Gareth, my hearing is fine!
> >
> Then why do you apparently find it impossible to produce any reasonable
> or, for preference good, sounding mixes here? Have you bought a decent,
> accurate pair of headphones yet?

Sort of like asking Einstein if he bought a decent calculator!!
Equipment never made anyone famous!!


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

[JackA]

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 1:48:02 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 09/11/2015 21:09, JackA wrote:
> > On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 3:16:59 PM UTC-5, Peter Larsen wrote:
> >> If you have any experience with actual sound recording, then please
> >> describe it.
> >
> > Am I on trial?
> >
> No, but if you keep on boasting about how good you are


Why not, I'm that confident.

I really wanted you to listen to that Jackson Browne "Doctor My Eyes", mix, just to tell me how different it sounds (and that I'm an idiot). Actually, a enemy/friend sent me it without a reason why. I later asked if it was the single mix, though he tells me that was in mono. Anyway, it's from a movie soundtrack. Not sure why they altered the mix; runtime falls between single and album mix. It does highlight, putting the drummer's snare drum upfront, that he overdubbed portions of drumming. Being a drummer, I'm not happy with that, why I put more faith in real drummers, like my idol, Buddy Rich!!!

Jack

, it's only
> reasonable to expect you to show some evidence of that. Either that or STFU.
>
> > I am just good, trust me.
> >
> We have yet to hear any evidence of you even reaching a mediocre standard..
>
> > An unlike Gareth, my hearing is fine!
> >
> Then why do you apparently find it impossible to produce any reasonable
> or, for preference good, sounding mixes here? Have you bought a decent,
> accurate pair of headphones yet?
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[Luxey]

петак, 06. новембар 2015. 14.07.41 UTC+1, JackA је написао/ла:
> The Chantays - Pipeline (1963). Believe it was recorded "live", unlike, for example, The Beatles, where overdubbing was necessary for their success!....
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/pipeline.mp3
>
> Jack

As you may remember, in the begining, I've listened to a number of your mixes
and thought they were crap compared to the original commercial releases, not
due sound quality, whichh at least partly is not your fault, tracks you mix
from are some mutilated versions out of some video game, but due mix quality,
the content, you are so keen on, perceived through the filter of your work,
your mix.
Also, at the time, I said your mixing techniques are not necessarilly bad on
their own, they could serve some purpose, send some message if applied on your
original recordings of your original music.

In the meantime you proved to be a troll, so I ignored you till this message,
but for some reason I've noticed other people quoted you and decided to take
another listen.

So, this one, Pipeline, is the worst I've heard from you. Mix like this one
can not have any purpose.

For the good part, I think you gave more attention to individual sounds, but
seems that attention distracted you from the main thing, the mix, where you
were never any good to begin with. The result is barely listenable.

I agree the content is more important than tech quality, but see what you do?
You are playing with ultra popular songs, top 40 hits, the most catchy music in existance, recorded by top professionals, played by top musiciaans ...
and what is the result?
Crap.
Getting the picture?

Get yourself couple of microphones, find some poor souls and do the recording
for free. Or, if you are able to produce some music on your own, even if it's
"mouse" music, MIDI only ... Give us the mix of that to hear.

All above would apply if you were not a troll. But, you are one.

Back to ignoring mode.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 8:19:42 PM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
> петак, 06. новембар 2015. 14.07.41 UTC+1, JackA је написао/ла:
> > The Chantays - Pipeline (1963). Believe it was recorded "live", unlike, for example, The Beatles, where overdubbing was necessary for their success!...
> >
> > http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/pipeline.mp3
> >
> > Jack
>
> As you may remember, in the begining, I've listened to a number of your mixes
> and thought they were crap compared to the original commercial releases, not
> due sound quality, whichh at least partly is not your fault, tracks you mix
> from are some mutilated versions out of some video game, but due mix quality,
> the content, you are so keen on, perceived through the filter of your work,
> your mix.
> Also, at the time, I said your mixing techniques are not necessarilly bad on
> their own, they could serve some purpose, send some message if applied on your
> original recordings of your original music.
>
> In the meantime you proved to be a troll, so I ignored you till this message,
> but for some reason I've noticed other people quoted you and decided to take
> another listen.
>
> So, this one, Pipeline, is the worst I've heard from you. Mix like this one
> can not have any purpose.
>
> For the good part, I think you gave more attention to individual sounds, but
> seems that attention distracted you from the main thing, the mix, where you
> were never any good to begin with. The result is barely listenable.
>
> I agree the content is more important than tech quality, but see what you do?
> You are playing with ultra popular songs, top 40 hits, the most catchy music in existance, recorded by top professionals, played by top musiciaans ....
> and what is the result?
> Crap.
> Getting the picture?




No, not at all. I did not remix or alter Pipeline. I did state nearly EVERY Beatles multi-track I have has a mutilated drum track, rendering decent stereo and impossibility. Sadly, these are so scarce, I have great difficulty comparing notes.

>
> Get yourself couple of microphones, find some poor souls and do the recording
> for free. Or, if you are able to produce some music on your own, even if it's
> "mouse" music, MIDI only ... Give us the mix of that to hear.
>
> All above would apply if you were not a troll. But, you are one.

Well, one of YOUR best posts was about Windows 10!! Before long, with Windows getting worse and worse, I'll be the only one able to do audio work with my trustworthy XP!!

>
> Back to ignoring mode.

You people are just uncivilized, cannibals at best, the way you chew my head off for no good reason! :-)

Toodles.

Jack

[Luxey]

четвртак, 12. новембар 2015. 02.47.59 UTC+1, JackA је написао/ла:

I knew it was a mistake to step into this ... but well, hopefully I'll
manage out.


> No, not at all. I did not remix or alter Pipeline.

Well, somebody surelly did, because it does not sound like widely available
release. For one, L-R is reversed, typical for the most of your mixes I've
heard so far. There's exaggerated "up frontness", also typical for your work.
Instruments sound isolated from each other, in a sense that they do not "work"
together ... Ok, maybe it was not you.

> I did state nearly EVERY Beatles multi-track I have has a mutilated drum
> track, ...

Yes, but not, as you claim, due some conspiracy plot, like hidden secret
multitracks back from the time when multitracks still did not exsist, or
simillar nonsense.

[JackA]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 3:11:30 AM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
> четвртак, 12. новембар 2015. 02.47.59 UTC+1, JackA је написао/ла:
>
> I knew it was a mistake to step into this ... but well, hopefully I'll
> manage out.
>
>
> > No, not at all. I did not remix or alter Pipeline.
>
> Well, somebody surelly did, because it does not sound like widely available
> release. For one, L-R is reversed, typical for the most of your mixes I've
> heard so far. There's exaggerated "up frontness", also typical for your work.
> Instruments sound isolated from each other, in a sense that they do not "work"
> together ... Ok, maybe it was not you.

May it was. Remember Dick Bartley (radio host) playing this in the late 80's, in stereo. Back then, it was a bigger deal, not so easily found!!

>
> > I did state nearly EVERY Beatles multi-track I have has a mutilated drum
> > track, ...
>
> Yes, but not, as you claim, due some conspiracy plot, like hidden secret
> multitracks back from the time when multitracks still did not exsist, or
> simillar nonsense.

Friend sent me Love Me Do from the newer Stereo mixes CD/DVD set. Sadly, it was still mono. Feel George Martin and Giles Martin betrays Beatles fans.

But, an audio improvement (clarity, not fidelity) in the stereo remix of I Want To Hold Your Hand!!

It was nice to hear someone remixed The Hollies' stereo. Get away from those annoying lopsided UK stereo mixes.

Jack

Jack

[Luxey]

четвртак, 12. новембар 2015. 15.28.59 UTC+1, JackA је написао/ла:
> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 3:11:30 AM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
> > четвртак, 12. новембар 2015. 02.47.59 UTC+1, JackA је написао/ла:
> >
> > I knew it was a mistake to step into this ... but well, hopefully I'll
> > manage out.
> >
> >
> > > No, not at all. I did not remix or alter Pipeline.
> >
> > Well, somebody surelly did, because it does not sound like widely available
> > release. For one, L-R is reversed, typical for the most of your mixes I've
> > heard so far. There's exaggerated "up frontness", also typical for your
> > work. Instruments sound isolated from each other, in a sense that they do
> > not "work" together ... Ok, maybe it was not you.
>
> May it was. Remember Dick Bartley (radio host) playing this in the late 80's,
> in stereo. Back then, it was a bigger deal, not so easily found!!

OK, this summed it up, again. You're on ignore forever.

[JackA]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 11:18:38 AM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
> четвртак, 12. новембар 2015. 15.28.59 UTC+1, JackA је написао/ла:
> > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 3:11:30 AM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
> > > четвртак, 12. новембар 2015. 02.47.59 UTC+1, JackA је написао/ла:
> > >
> > > I knew it was a mistake to step into this ... but well, hopefully I'll
> > > manage out.
> > >
> > >
> > > > No, not at all. I did not remix or alter Pipeline.
> > >
> > > Well, somebody surelly did, because it does not sound like widely available
> > > release. For one, L-R is reversed, typical for the most of your mixes I've
> > > heard so far. There's exaggerated "up frontness", also typical for your
> > > work. Instruments sound isolated from each other, in a sense that they do
> > > not "work" together ... Ok, maybe it was not you.
> >
> > May it was. Remember Dick Bartley (radio host) playing this in the late 80's,
> > in stereo. Back then, it was a bigger deal, not so easily found!!
>
> OK, this summed it up, again. You're on ignore forever.

My pleasure!

Jack

[Bart Candlewick[_3_]]

On 11/11/2015 8:47 PM, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 8:19:42 PM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
>> петак, 06. новембар 2015. 14.07.41 UTC+1, JackA је написао/ла:
>>> The Chantays - Pipeline (1963). Believe it was recorded "live", unlike, for example, The Beatles, where overdubbing was necessary for their success!...
>>>
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/pipeline.mp3
>>>
>>> Jack
>>
>> As you may remember, in the begining, I've listened to a number of your mixes
>> and thought they were crap compared to the original commercial releases, not
>> due sound quality, whichh at least partly is not your fault, tracks you mix
>> from are some mutilated versions out of some video game, but due mix quality,
>> the content, you are so keen on, perceived through the filter of your work,
>> your mix.
>> Also, at the time, I said your mixing techniques are not necessarilly bad on
>> their own, they could serve some purpose, send some message if applied on your
>> original recordings of your original music.
>>
>> In the meantime you proved to be a troll, so I ignored you till this message,
>> but for some reason I've noticed other people quoted you and decided to take
>> another listen.
>>
>> So, this one, Pipeline, is the worst I've heard from you. Mix like this one
>> can not have any purpose.
>>
>> For the good part, I think you gave more attention to individual sounds, but
>> seems that attention distracted you from the main thing, the mix, where you
>> were never any good to begin with. The result is barely listenable.
>>
>> I agree the content is more important than tech quality, but see what you do?
>> You are playing with ultra popular songs, top 40 hits, the most catchy music in existance, recorded by top professionals, played by top musiciaans ...
>> and what is the result?
>> Crap.
>> Getting the picture?
>
>
>
>
> No, not at all. I did not remix or alter Pipeline. I did state nearly EVERY Beatles multi-track I have has a mutilated drum track, rendering decent stereo and impossibility. Sadly, these are so scarce, I have great difficulty comparing notes.
>
>>
>> Get yourself couple of microphones, find some poor souls and do the recording
>> for free. Or, if you are able to produce some music on your own, even if it's
>> "mouse" music, MIDI only ... Give us the mix of that to hear.
>>
>> All above would apply if you were not a troll. But, you are one.
>
> Well, one of YOUR best posts was about Windows 10!! Before long, with Windows getting worse and worse, I'll be the only one able to do audio work with my trustworthy XP!!
>
>>
>> Back to ignoring mode.
>
> You people are just uncivilized, cannibals at best, the way you chew my head off for no good reason! :-)
>
> Toodles.
>
> Jack
>

Jack, you are correct. These mean and ignorant people are attacking you
unfairly. I wouldn't blame you if you just left and never came back to
this God-forsaken backwater. It would serve them right!

Best regards,
Bart

[JackA]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 7:07:42 PM UTC-5, Bart Candlewick wrote:
> On 11/11/2015 8:47 PM, JackA wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 8:19:42 PM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
> >> петак, 06. новембар 2015. 14.07.41 UTC+1, JackA је написао/ла:
> >>> The Chantays - Pipeline (1963). Believe it was recorded "live", unlike, for example, The Beatles, where overdubbing was necessary for their success!...
> >>>
> >>> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/pipeline.mp3
> >>>
> >>> Jack
> >>
> >> As you may remember, in the begining, I've listened to a number of your mixes
> >> and thought they were crap compared to the original commercial releases, not
> >> due sound quality, whichh at least partly is not your fault, tracks you mix
> >> from are some mutilated versions out of some video game, but due mix quality,
> >> the content, you are so keen on, perceived through the filter of your work,
> >> your mix.
> >> Also, at the time, I said your mixing techniques are not necessarilly bad on
> >> their own, they could serve some purpose, send some message if applied on your
> >> original recordings of your original music.
> >>
> >> In the meantime you proved to be a troll, so I ignored you till this message,
> >> but for some reason I've noticed other people quoted you and decided to take
> >> another listen.
> >>
> >> So, this one, Pipeline, is the worst I've heard from you. Mix like this one
> >> can not have any purpose.
> >>
> >> For the good part, I think you gave more attention to individual sounds, but
> >> seems that attention distracted you from the main thing, the mix, where you
> >> were never any good to begin with. The result is barely listenable.
> >>
> >> I agree the content is more important than tech quality, but see what you do?
> >> You are playing with ultra popular songs, top 40 hits, the most catchy music in existance, recorded by top professionals, played by top musiciaans ...
> >> and what is the result?
> >> Crap.
> >> Getting the picture?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > No, not at all. I did not remix or alter Pipeline. I did state nearly EVERY Beatles multi-track I have has a mutilated drum track, rendering decent stereo and impossibility. Sadly, these are so scarce, I have great difficulty comparing notes.
> >
> >>
> >> Get yourself couple of microphones, find some poor souls and do the recording
> >> for free. Or, if you are able to produce some music on your own, even if it's
> >> "mouse" music, MIDI only ... Give us the mix of that to hear.
> >>
> >> All above would apply if you were not a troll. But, you are one.
> >
> > Well, one of YOUR best posts was about Windows 10!! Before long, with Windows getting worse and worse, I'll be the only one able to do audio work with my trustworthy XP!!
> >
> >>
> >> Back to ignoring mode.
> >
> > You people are just uncivilized, cannibals at best, the way you chew my head off for no good reason! :-)
> >
> > Toodles.
> >
> > Jack
> >
>
> Jack, you are correct. These mean and ignorant people are attacking you
> unfairly. I wouldn't blame you if you just left and never came back to
> this God-forsaken backwater. It would serve them right!

Sometime, I believe they put masks on before they participate here, like the head-choppers abroad!!

Thanks for the advice, Bart!!!

Jack
>
> Best regards,
> Bart