Re: Audition 1.5 Problem < I installed Audition 1.5 and.....> [Archive]

JackA

November 12th 15, 11:03 PM

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 4:54:07 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 13/11/2015 9:35 a.m., Rick Ruskin wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:11:55 -0500, Nil
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 12 Nov 2015, Rick Ruskin > wrote in
> >> rec.audio.pro:
> >>
> >>> I have no intention of "upgrading" past Audition 1.5 until forced
> >>> to do so. I tried the nightmare that was Version 3 and concluded
> >>> to stick with what works with little to know problems.
> >> What's wrong with ver. 3? I've used it a bit and it seemed to be a bit
> >> more resource-intensive, the interface and menus were changed a bit,
> >> but it seemed to have the same feature set and to work as well as ver.
> >> 1.5. I got the impression that after a short period of adjustment I'd
> >> be right back on track. Am I missing something?
> >
> > I hated that I needed to name a track before recording it. It was
> > glitchy as all hell. And I thought the GUI was extremely cumbersome.
> > All I need a DAW program for is to capture, edit, and play back. I
> > handle eveything via a console.
> >
>
> You think that's bad ? I got majorly put off Cubase every early on when
> I couldn't record anything. Turns out I needed to draw an empty event on
> the time-line before I could record into it !!!

That is to allot disc space. If you blindly record, you could be near the end of your recording, with high hopes, and up pops a warning OUT OF DISC SPACE.

Sort of dumb to do it any other way.

Jack

>
> Went back to Vegas and am still (just) there.
>
> geoff

Frank Stearns

November 13th 15, 12:48 PM

JackA > writes:

>On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 4:54:07 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>> On 13/11/2015 9:35 a.m., Rick Ruskin wrote:
>> > On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:11:55 -0500, Nil
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 12 Nov 2015, Rick Ruskin > wrote in
>> >> rec.audio.pro:

snips

>> You think that's bad ? I got majorly put off Cubase every early on when
>> I couldn't record anything. Turns out I needed to draw an empty event on
>> the time-line before I could record into it !!!

>That is to allot disc space. If you blindly record, you could be near the end of
>your recording, with high hopes, and up pops a warning OUT OF DISC SPACE.

>Sort of dumb to do it any other way.

Really? So what happens if the take gets in a groove, goes longer than expected, and
your allotment is exceeded, and yet disk space was still available?

And what happens if the talent suddenly starts jamming with some one-of-kind
performance? Rather than diving for the record button, the engineer has to first
fiddle with "pre-allocation", losing more precious seconds of the jam, because
software UI designers (once again) don't really understand the real-world workflow
of tasks their products alledgely support?

Perhaps this approach had some feeble merit back in the days long past when a BIG
harddrive was 500 MBytes (which wasn't very many multi-track minutes), but these
days of high performance, cheap, multi-terabyte drives this pre-allocation thing
does seem like a silly hurdle. (I don't use Cubase, so I can't speak to the deeper
reasons why they -- and apparently only they -- take this approach, but it would
irritate the hell out of me, too.)

It is one of the 21st century audio engineer's pre-session duties to glance at the
available disk space and make a rough mental calculation as to the available space
and anticipated needs of the session. Plus, there'd be a back-up recorder of some
kind running, right?

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

mcp6453[_2_]

November 13th 15, 02:21 PM

On 11/12/2015 3:14 AM, gray_wolf wrote:
> I found a copy of Adobe Audition 1.5 And installed on
> my Win7 x64, AMD Athlon 64 X2 2.61 GHz with 6GB Ram.
>
>
> In Audition 1.5 I loaded a 14.5 MB, 6 min mp3 file and it
> took 15 seconds to load. I did a 'save as', after few edits,
> it took 5 seconds
>
> The same file loaded in Audition CS6 in ~2 seconds.
> Saved in about 4 seconds. Apparently CS6 decodes faster
> than it encodes.
>
> Without checking out all the small bits Audition 1.5 seems very serviceable.
> It uses mp3PROÂ® audio coding technology licensed from Coding Technologies, Fraunhofer IIS and Thomson multimedia.
>
> I'm not sure what encoder Audition CS6 uses. Lame?
> Audition CS6 works with other formats like Flac, ogg and ape.
>
> Don't know what to say to the OP except check your settings
> like cache and temp file location, do a fresh install and
> make sure something else is not stealing your CPU and HDD
> resources. Trust me, it happens.

Thanks for doing that. I monitor the resources in use by the computer all the time. That's not the problem. The settings
are the same as they are for an XP installation (on a Pentium 4) that works perfectly. Either W7 doesn't like 1.5, or
1.5 doesn't like the SSD. I'm going to install it on a W7 computer with a mechanical hard drive to see if there is any
difference. I'm such a fan of 1.5 (like Rick) that I'm prepared to get a new computer and leave in on XP, if that's what
it takes. Just don't leave an XP computer exposed on the Internet.

JackA

November 13th 15, 05:47 PM

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 7:48:25 AM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
> JackA > writes:
>
> >On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 4:54:07 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> >> On 13/11/2015 9:35 a.m., Rick Ruskin wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:11:55 -0500, Nil
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 12 Nov 2015, Rick Ruskin > wrote in
> >> >> rec.audio.pro:
>
> snips
>
> >> You think that's bad ? I got majorly put off Cubase every early on when
> >> I couldn't record anything. Turns out I needed to draw an empty event on
> >> the time-line before I could record into it !!!
>
> >That is to allot disc space. If you blindly record, you could be near the end of
> >your recording, with high hopes, and up pops a warning OUT OF DISC SPACE.
>
> >Sort of dumb to do it any other way.
>
> Really? So what happens if the take gets in a groove, goes longer than expected

In the professional world, some trial Takes are done before recording is even considered. I can't see someone allotting 6 minutes of audio for a 3.5 minute song, then find the songs is too long!!

, and
> your allotment is exceeded, and yet disk space was still available?
>
> And what happens if the talent suddenly starts jamming with some one-of-kind
> performance? Rather than diving for the record button, the engineer has to first
> fiddle with "pre-allocation", losing more precious seconds of the jam, because
> software UI designers (once again) don't really understand the real-world workflow
> of tasks their products alledgely support?

That never happens in the real world, where musicians goes nuts and fault the engineer since he should have expected it.

>
> Perhaps this approach had some feeble merit back in the days long past when a BIG
> harddrive was 500 MBytes (which wasn't very many multi-track minutes), but these
> days of high performance, cheap, multi-terabyte drives this pre-allocation thing
> does seem like a silly hurdle. (I don't use Cubase, so I can't speak to the deeper
> reasons why they -- and apparently only they -- take this approach, but it would
> irritate the hell out of me, too.)
>
> It is one of the 21st century audio engineer's pre-session duties to glance at the
> available disk space and make a rough mental calculation as to the available space
> and anticipated needs of the session.

So you agree. Thank you.

Plus, there'd be a back-up recorder of some
> kind running, right?

Ask him/her, not me!!!

Jack
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>
> --
> .

JackA

November 13th 15, 07:49 PM

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 1:14:27 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA, et al:
>
> I'm sorry that asshole from MA
> had to crash the original thread
> devoted to this topic. There was
> a lot of good discussion there,
> a lot of good ideas tossed around -
> until it showed up!

Oh, it's okay. No harm done. I know he was lonesome after he was chewing on his owner's pant leg and eventually shook him free. Assume you're referring to None, The Wonder Dog.

Jack

david gourley[_2_]

November 13th 15, 09:49 PM

mcp6453 > said...news:hI2dnfJLq_NybNjLnZ2dnUU7-
:

> On 11/12/2015 3:14 AM, gray_wolf wrote:
>> I found a copy of Adobe Audition 1.5 And installed on
>> my Win7 x64, AMD Athlon 64 X2 2.61 GHz with 6GB Ram.
>>
>>
>> In Audition 1.5 I loaded a 14.5 MB, 6 min mp3 file and it
>> took 15 seconds to load. I did a 'save as', after few edits,
>> it took 5 seconds
>>
>> The same file loaded in Audition CS6 in ~2 seconds.
>> Saved in about 4 seconds. Apparently CS6 decodes faster
>> than it encodes.
>>
>> Without checking out all the small bits Audition 1.5 seems very
serviceable.
>> It uses mp3PROÂ® audio coding technology licensed from Coding
Technologies, Fraunhofer IIS and Thomson multimedia.
>>
>> I'm not sure what encoder Audition CS6 uses. Lame?
>> Audition CS6 works with other formats like Flac, ogg and ape.
>>
>> Don't know what to say to the OP except check your settings
>> like cache and temp file location, do a fresh install and
>> make sure something else is not stealing your CPU and HDD
>> resources. Trust me, it happens.
>
> Thanks for doing that. I monitor the resources in use by the computer all
the time. That's not the problem. The settings
> are the same as they are for an XP installation (on a Pentium 4) that
works perfectly. Either W7 doesn't like 1.5, or
> 1.5 doesn't like the SSD. I'm going to install it on a W7 computer with a
mechanical hard drive to see if there is any
> difference. I'm such a fan of 1.5 (like Rick) that I'm prepared to get a
new computer and leave in on XP, if that's what
> it takes. Just don't leave an XP computer exposed on the Internet.
>
>

Mike,

Have you tried it in 'compatibility mode' with W7? Apologies if I'd missed
that earlier if you did.

david

Frank Stearns

November 13th 15, 11:49 PM

JackA > writes:

>On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 7:48:25 AM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
>> JackA > writes:
>>
>> >On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 4:54:07 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>> >> On 13/11/2015 9:35 a.m., Rick Ruskin wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:11:55 -0500, Nil
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 12 Nov 2015, Rick Ruskin > wrote in
>> >> >> rec.audio.pro:
>>
>> snips
>>
>> >> You think that's bad ? I got majorly put off Cubase every early on when
>> >> I couldn't record anything. Turns out I needed to draw an empty event on
>> >> the time-line before I could record into it !!!
>>
>> >That is to allot disc space. If you blindly record, you could be near the end of
>> >your recording, with high hopes, and up pops a warning OUT OF DISC SPACE.
>>
>> >Sort of dumb to do it any other way.
>>
>> Really? So what happens if the take gets in a groove, goes longer than expected

>In the professional world, some trial Takes are done before recording is even
>considered. I can't see someone allotting 6 minutes of audio for a 3.5 minute song,
>then find the songs is too long!!

Been in a modern studio setting? Many artists like to be more "organic" on the one
hand; while on the other hand some of the top talent simply walks in and does
something, ONE TAKE -- no level checks, no rehearsals. Yes, that's absolutely true.
If you've done your homework (or worked with this artist or someone like them
before) you can readily pull this off, no problem.

But if you missed it, you're the one who won't get called again. And, at the same
time, if they're in a groove, things might well just keep rolling and rolling.

"Uhhhh, 'scuse me, Mr or Ms Talent... I have to break your creative flow now and
**** you off, because I have to stop the sesion and allocate another hour of session
space on my crummy software, even though I had an hour assigned because you
originally told me it was one five minute song..." (Yes, in the old days you were
changing 2" reels every 16 minutes but those days are gone. People *expect* to now
be able to stay in the flow.)

So given those two extremes that could happen -- even in the same session! -- how
much do you pre-allot? And if it's a huge amount (just to be safe), is that
allotment then tied to that project "forever", with no way to release what might be
a large block of unused disk space for other sessions?

This silly pre-allotment thing -- which is apparently unique to Cubase -- is an
unnecessary pain in the ass. I'd reject Cubase immediately for that single reason
alone. Now, there might be more to this in terms of how cubase actually operates,
but if it is as surmized, nope, not an app I'd use for any of my sessions.

>, and
>> your allotment is exceeded, and yet disk space was still available?
>>
>> And what happens if the talent suddenly starts jamming with some one-of-kind
>> performance? Rather than diving for the record button, the engineer has to first
>> fiddle with "pre-allocation", losing more precious seconds of the jam, because
>> software UI designers (once again) don't really understand the real-world workflow
>> of tasks their products alledgely support?

>That never happens in the real world, where musicians goes nuts and fault the
>engineer since he should have expected it.

Guffaw! You really need to "sit in the hot seat" someday. The engineer is often
there to read minds, make things happen, and keep them happening -- and take heat if
something goes awry, especially if it's a high-dollar session. (Try doing a $6K/hour
orchestra session some day. I have; all went well each time, but it's unnerving as
hell; goes with the territory.)

If something DID go wrong (matters not one teeny bit why or whose fault) and you
lost the tracks from a 3 hour session, you can bet the person who signed that
$18,000 check is going to be anything but forgiving or understanding.)

Now, there are common-sense tricks to facilitate "dependable studio magic". For
example, whether I'm tracking in the studio or on location, one of the duplicate
multitrack machines runs nearly non-stop. (Thankfully it does NOT need to have its
disk space pre-allocated!!)

More often than you might guess those "rehearsals" or "level check" performances are
gems or have some gem sections within them. You're damned glad you had a machine
rolling and from experience had already set the levels darned close before anyone
even sat down to play.

And, you didn't have fuss with some stupid "guess the space" requirement of poorly
designed software.

>> Perhaps this approach had some feeble merit back in the days long past when a BIG
>> harddrive was 500 MBytes (which wasn't very many multi-track minutes), but these
>> days of high performance, cheap, multi-terabyte drives this pre-allocation thing
>> does seem like a silly hurdle. (I don't use Cubase, so I can't speak to the deeper
>> reasons why they -- and apparently only they -- take this approach, but it would
>> irritate the hell out of me, too.)
>>
>> It is one of the 21st century audio engineer's pre-session duties to glance at the
>> available disk space and make a rough mental calculation as to the available space
>> and anticipated needs of the session.

>So you agree. Thank you.

Agree with what? The simple point is that pre-allocation is an awkward, irritating,
and unnecessary layer. Simply plug in a 2 Tbyte drive, make sure there's at least
one Tbyte free, and you're good to go for several sessions, and with an efficient
use of space. None wasted, none coming up short.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

None

November 13th 15, 11:56 PM

< theckma!-theckma!-theckma! @ omnibus-brevis.org > sharted:
> < more of thecka ignoring me again, snipped >

Hey, li'l buddy, I see you're still an utter failure at ignoring me.
You must be used to being a failure. You've ignored me by dedicating
entire posts to me. You've even started threads about me, you were
ignoring me so hard!

As everyone with even half a brain will have noticed, if they give a
****, is that your little tantrums on my behalf always seem to get
responses that you really won't like. In fact, your veins will be
bulging and your eyes will be seeing red. And I've pointed it out to
you explicitly several times. But "everyone with even half a brain"
doesn't include you; you don't even come up to the "halfwit" level.
FCKWAFHA.

JackA

November 14th 15, 01:28 AM

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 6:49:57 PM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
> JackA > writes:
>
> >On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 7:48:25 AM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
> >> JackA > writes:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 4:54:07 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> >> >> On 13/11/2015 9:35 a.m., Rick Ruskin wrote:
> >> >> > On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:11:55 -0500, Nil
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 12 Nov 2015, Rick Ruskin > wrote in
> >> >> >> rec.audio.pro:
> >>
> >> snips
> >>
> >> >> You think that's bad ? I got majorly put off Cubase every early on when
> >> >> I couldn't record anything. Turns out I needed to draw an empty event on
> >> >> the time-line before I could record into it !!!
> >>
> >> >That is to allot disc space. If you blindly record, you could be near the end of
> >> >your recording, with high hopes, and up pops a warning OUT OF DISC SPACE.
> >>
> >> >Sort of dumb to do it any other way.
> >>
> >> Really? So what happens if the take gets in a groove, goes longer than expected
>
> >In the professional world, some trial Takes are done before recording is even
> >considered. I can't see someone allotting 6 minutes of audio for a 3.5 minute song,
> >then find the songs is too long!!
>
> Been in a modern studio setting? Many artists like to be more "organic" on the one
> hand; while on the other hand some of the top talent simply walks in and does
> something, ONE TAKE -- no level checks, no rehearsals. Yes, that's absolutely true.
> If you've done your homework (or worked with this artist or someone like them
> before) you can readily pull this off, no problem.
>
> But if you missed it, you're the one who won't get called again. And, at the same
> time, if they're in a groove, things might well just keep rolling and rolling.
>
> "Uhhhh, 'scuse me, Mr or Ms Talent... I have to break your creative flow now and
> **** you off, because I have to stop the sesion and allocate another hour of session
> space on my crummy software, even though I had an hour assigned because you
> originally told me it was one five minute song..." (Yes, in the old days you were
> changing 2" reels every 16 minutes but those days are gone. People *expect* to now
> be able to stay in the flow.)
>
> So given those two extremes that could happen -- even in the same session! -- how
> much do you pre-allot? And if it's a huge amount (just to be safe), is that
> allotment then tied to that project "forever", with no way to release what might be
> a large block of unused disk space for other sessions?
>
> This silly pre-allotment thing -- which is apparently unique to Cubase -- is an
> unnecessary pain in the ass. I'd reject Cubase immediately for that single reason
> alone. Now, there might be more to this in terms of how cubase actually operates,
> but if it is as surmized, nope, not an app I'd use for any of my sessions..
>
> >, and
> >> your allotment is exceeded, and yet disk space was still available?
> >>
> >> And what happens if the talent suddenly starts jamming with some one-of-kind
> >> performance? Rather than diving for the record button, the engineer has to first
> >> fiddle with "pre-allocation", losing more precious seconds of the jam, because
> >> software UI designers (once again) don't really understand the real-world workflow
> >> of tasks their products alledgely support?
>
> >That never happens in the real world, where musicians goes nuts and fault the
> >engineer since he should have expected it.
>
> Guffaw! You really need to "sit in the hot seat" someday. The engineer is often
> there to read minds, make things happen, and keep them happening -- and take heat if
> something goes awry, especially if it's a high-dollar session. (Try doing a $6K/hour
> orchestra session some day. I have; all went well each time, but it's unnerving as
> hell; goes with the territory.)
>
> If something DID go wrong (matters not one teeny bit why or whose fault) and you
> lost the tracks from a 3 hour session, you can bet the person who signed that
> $18,000 check is going to be anything but forgiving or understanding.)
>
> Now, there are common-sense tricks to facilitate "dependable studio magic". For
> example, whether I'm tracking in the studio or on location, one of the duplicate
> multitrack machines runs nearly non-stop. (Thankfully it does NOT need to have its
> disk space pre-allocated!!)
>
> More often than you might guess those "rehearsals" or "level check" performances are
> gems or have some gem sections within them. You're damned glad you had a machine
> rolling and from experience had already set the levels darned close before anyone
> even sat down to play.
>
> And, you didn't have fuss with some stupid "guess the space" requirement of poorly
> designed software.
>
>
> >> Perhaps this approach had some feeble merit back in the days long past when a BIG
> >> harddrive was 500 MBytes (which wasn't very many multi-track minutes), but these
> >> days of high performance, cheap, multi-terabyte drives this pre-allocation thing
> >> does seem like a silly hurdle. (I don't use Cubase, so I can't speak to the deeper
> >> reasons why they -- and apparently only they -- take this approach, but it would
> >> irritate the hell out of me, too.)
> >>
> >> It is one of the 21st century audio engineer's pre-session duties to glance at the
> >> available disk space and make a rough mental calculation as to the available space
> >> and anticipated needs of the session.
>
> >So you agree. Thank you.
>
> Agree with what? The simple point is that pre-allocation is an awkward, irritating,
> and unnecessary layer. Simply plug in a 2 Tbyte drive, make sure there's at least
> one Tbyte free, and you're good to go for several sessions, and with an efficient
> use of space. None wasted, none coming up short.

Very true, I agree, but maybe a 2 T' byte drive isn't what I have. Maybe it's partly full. My DAW (prefer DAS) would tell me how much music I could record before beginning. I feel that's an excellent idea. Even Goldwave software I use requires a predetermined time-line.

I ask you, what did they do in an analog world? Splice tape real-time when they discovered the drummer wanted to do a 2 hour solo? No. They had an idea what was going to be recorded. Personally, I wouldn't want to record anything, unless I had a decent idea how long it will take. Besides, if I were the engineer, they'd quickly know their allotted time had expired and I'd have to be paid double before continuing.

And, finally, I'm not arguing that I have more experience than you at recording. I'm just stating what I believe is a logical way to record, that's all.

Jack

>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>
> --
> .

None

November 14th 15, 01:54 AM

< lil-krissie-krybabie @ hockeyhelmet.shortbus.ret > drooled on his
shoe:
> <Krissie's krap flushed>

Tell me, Ralphie Wiggum-Sosickie, does your cat's breath smell like
ca-taf-oo, ca-ta-food, kitty litter and tunafisch? Hmmmm? Riddle me
that, O ritarded one!

"One - of - us! One - of - us! One - of - us! One - of - us!
One - of - us! One - of - us! One - of - us! One - of - us!
One - of - us!"

Try chanting it, li'l buddy, you'll like it, I think. It's what
microcephalics chant. Thanks for the laugh, dumb ****! I'm gone while
you're still scratching your basaltic head!

Nirmroghituotz, Krissie!

YWKMAFHM?

Luxey

November 14th 15, 03:51 AM

ÑÑƒÐ±Ð¾Ñ‚Ð°, 14. Ð½Ð¾Ð²ÐµÐ¼Ð±Ð°Ñ€ 2015. 00.49.57 UTC+1, Frank Stearns Ñ˜Ðµ Ð½Ð°Ð¿Ð¸ÑÐ°Ð¾/Ð»Ð°:
> JackA > writes:
>
> >On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 7:48:25 AM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
> >> JackA > writes:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 4:54:07 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> >> >> On 13/11/2015 9:35 a.m., Rick Ruskin wrote:
> >> >> > On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:11:55 -0500, Nil
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 12 Nov 2015, Rick Ruskin > wrote in
> >> >> >> rec.audio.pro:
> >>
> >> snips
> >>
> >> >> You think that's bad ? I got majorly put off Cubase every early on when
> >> >> I couldn't record anything. Turns out I needed to draw an empty event on
> >> >> the time-line before I could record into it !!!
> >>
> >> >That is to allot disc space. If you blindly record, you could be near the end of
> >> >your recording, with high hopes, and up pops a warning OUT OF DISC SPACE.
> >>
> >> >Sort of dumb to do it any other way.
> >>
> >> Really? So what happens if the take gets in a groove, goes longer than expected
>
> >In the professional world, some trial Takes are done before recording is even
> >considered. I can't see someone allotting 6 minutes of audio for a 3.5 minute song,
> >then find the songs is too long!!
>
> Been in a modern studio setting? Many artists like to be more "organic" on the one
> hand; while on the other hand some of the top talent simply walks in and does
> something, ONE TAKE -- no level checks, no rehearsals. Yes, that's absolutely true.
> If you've done your homework (or worked with this artist or someone like them
> before) you can readily pull this off, no problem.
>
> But if you missed it, you're the one who won't get called again. And, at the same
> time, if they're in a groove, things might well just keep rolling and rolling.
>
> "Uhhhh, 'scuse me, Mr or Ms Talent... I have to break your creative flow now and
> **** you off, because I have to stop the sesion and allocate another hour of session
> space on my crummy software, even though I had an hour assigned because you
> originally told me it was one five minute song..." (Yes, in the old days you were
> changing 2" reels every 16 minutes but those days are gone. People *expect* to now
> be able to stay in the flow.)
>
> So given those two extremes that could happen -- even in the same session! -- how
> much do you pre-allot? And if it's a huge amount (just to be safe), is that
> allotment then tied to that project "forever", with no way to release what might be
> a large block of unused disk space for other sessions?
>
> This silly pre-allotment thing -- which is apparently unique to Cubase -- is an
> unnecessary pain in the ass. I'd reject Cubase immediately for that single reason
> alone. Now, there might be more to this in terms of how cubase actually operates,
> but if it is as surmized, nope, not an app I'd use for any of my sessions..
>
> >, and
> >> your allotment is exceeded, and yet disk space was still available?
> >>
> >> And what happens if the talent suddenly starts jamming with some one-of-kind
> >> performance? Rather than diving for the record button, the engineer has to first
> >> fiddle with "pre-allocation", losing more precious seconds of the jam, because
> >> software UI designers (once again) don't really understand the real-world workflow
> >> of tasks their products alledgely support?
>
> >That never happens in the real world, where musicians goes nuts and fault the
> >engineer since he should have expected it.
>
> Guffaw! You really need to "sit in the hot seat" someday. The engineer is often
> there to read minds, make things happen, and keep them happening -- and take heat if
> something goes awry, especially if it's a high-dollar session. (Try doing a $6K/hour
> orchestra session some day. I have; all went well each time, but it's unnerving as
> hell; goes with the territory.)
>
> If something DID go wrong (matters not one teeny bit why or whose fault) and you
> lost the tracks from a 3 hour session, you can bet the person who signed that
> $18,000 check is going to be anything but forgiving or understanding.)
>
> Now, there are common-sense tricks to facilitate "dependable studio magic". For
> example, whether I'm tracking in the studio or on location, one of the duplicate
> multitrack machines runs nearly non-stop. (Thankfully it does NOT need to have its
> disk space pre-allocated!!)
>
> More often than you might guess those "rehearsals" or "level check" performances are
> gems or have some gem sections within them. You're damned glad you had a machine
> rolling and from experience had already set the levels darned close before anyone
> even sat down to play.
>
> And, you didn't have fuss with some stupid "guess the space" requirement of poorly
> designed software.
>
>
> >> Perhaps this approach had some feeble merit back in the days long past when a BIG
> >> harddrive was 500 MBytes (which wasn't very many multi-track minutes), but these
> >> days of high performance, cheap, multi-terabyte drives this pre-allocation thing
> >> does seem like a silly hurdle. (I don't use Cubase, so I can't speak to the deeper
> >> reasons why they -- and apparently only they -- take this approach, but it would
> >> irritate the hell out of me, too.)
> >>
> >> It is one of the 21st century audio engineer's pre-session duties to glance at the
> >> available disk space and make a rough mental calculation as to the available space
> >> and anticipated needs of the session.
>
> >So you agree. Thank you.
>
> Agree with what? The simple point is that pre-allocation is an awkward, irritating,
> and unnecessary layer. Simply plug in a 2 Tbyte drive, make sure there's at least
> one Tbyte free, and you're good to go for several sessions, and with an efficient
> use of space. None wasted, none coming up short.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>
> --
> .

Cubase was like that on ATARI, when it ws MIDI only and maybe up to VST32
version for Windows, I can not really remember.

Now, what you seem not to be aware of, even on ATARI, for MIDI only, it had
sort of "virtual tracks" feature, although they may have been named
differently, meaning you'd draw an event to record into, but it would loop
record happilly all the time, as long aas you don't hit stop, to find "takes"
neatly stacked one under another. Then you could edit a perfect take out all
the mess. The first couple of audio versions may have lacked the feature, I'm
not sure, but what I am sure, we were still well in the '90s when it came
availaable for audio takes.

So, it was not about allocation of disk space, while it must be 15 years since
you do not have to make an event prior to recording and even in the old times
when you had to draw an event prior to recording, you'd not lose anything as
long as you had prepared event and you could always record into one then copy
to another and just like practice of the 21st century is one, back then practice was another, but at the same time it was the same, know your "Fuzzbox"
and be prepared to use it.

I'm not familliar with more modern incarnations of Cubase, I see they are at
No.8(?) but I'm sure it is one excellent piece of music making and recording
software, as it ever was.

Peter Larsen[_3_]

November 14th 15, 09:27 AM

On 13-11-2015 15:21, mcp6453 wrote:

> On 11/12/2015 3:14 AM, gray_wolf wrote:

>> Don't know what to say to the OP except check your settings
>> like cache and temp file location, do a fresh install and
>> make sure something else is not stealing your CPU and HDD
>> resources. Trust me, it happens.

It is probably still in the manual somewhere, at least two spindles
recommended. I stand by my opinion that this is the issue here even if
if the disk is SSD. Note all I know about SSD is that I bought a 2.5"
disk before moving house a couple of years ago and that IBAS says there
is no such thing as data-recovery from an SSD disk. Eventually however
they will probably be cheaper because of the loss of ability to
manufacture anything mechanical. My asumption is that the controller
inside the disk does not like simultanous read and write.

> Thanks for doing that. I monitor the resources in use by the computer all the time. That's not the problem. The settings
> are the same as they are for an XP installation (on a Pentium 4) that works perfectly. Either W7 doesn't like 1.5, or
> 1.5 doesn't like the SSD. I'm going to install it on a W7 computer with a mechanical hard drive to see if there is any
> difference. I'm such a fan of 1.5 (like Rick) that I'm prepared to get a new computer and leave in on XP, if that's what
> it takes. Just don't leave an XP computer exposed on the Internet.

You may find that XP is not installable on a new box. Anyway, one disk
for audio storage, one for OS and temp-location 1 and another for
temp-location 2 works best. You with then keep it reading from one drive
and writing to another all the time for maximum speed.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Frank Stearns

November 14th 15, 01:32 PM

JackA > writes:

-snips-

>> and unnecessary layer. Simply plug in a 2 Tbyte drive, make sure there's =
>at least=20
>> one Tbyte free, and you're good to go for several sessions, and with an e=
>fficient=20
>> use of space. None wasted, none coming up short.

>Very true, I agree, but maybe a 2 T' byte drive isn't what I have. Maybe it=
>'s partly full. My DAW (prefer DAS) would tell me how much music I could re=

Could well be. Depends on what you're doing. If it's a home-studio/hobby thing then
yes, you'll probably run with whatever you have, and that's fine. If something goes
awry, probably no big deal.

But if you're a pro, with a rep to maintain to continue getting the better gigs,
you'll have the appropriate resources, including simultaneous backups.

>cord before beginning. I feel that's an excellent idea. Even Goldwave softw=
>are I use requires a predetermined time-line.

You mean you have to tell it how much time you might think you'll use and pre-assign
it? If so, that's the darnedest thing I've ever heard of.

Protools also has a time line (goes out to 600 minutes per session file or some
such), but there is NO disk space pre-assigned to that time line, and you need never
"pre-allocate" anything on that timeline prior to recording.

Disk space is simply used as needed. It's a "management" item that is appropriately
left to the machine. You need only do the occasional glance at your computer
resources to make sure there's a ball-park amount of space available.

>I ask you, what did they do in an analog world? Splice tape real-time when =
>they discovered the drummer wanted to do a 2 hour solo? No. They had an ide=

In the ultimate demanding situation for continuous record, say a live concert,
two analog machines would be used, each getting the same set of signals. As the tape
on one neared the end of the current reel, the other machine would be started, and
there would be some overlap of program material between the two machines.

The tape op would then unload the filled reel, label it accordingly, then load up a
new reel on that idling machine. It'd then be ready once the other machine ran low
on remaining time. And so it'd go, continuous recording while bouncing between
machines.

(And you hoped they were well-maintained constant tension machines so that if you
did a splice in post between reels, the speeds across the splice matched exactly.)

At 30 ips, the tape op was a busy guy -- and with a huge pile of 2" reels of 456 or
250 nearby. While in my teens I did the occasional stage work at a local theater.
One year, the Record Plant mobile was following Carol King around on tour.

Into a relatively small box truck they had an Audiotronics 36x24 console, JBL 4320s
hanging nearly in your face (pretty damned big nearfields!), two 3M 24 tracks, and
literally several hundred reels of 2" 456 stacked up next to the 3Ms. I stuck my
head in. The two guys elbow to elbow at the console were relatively relaxed; the
tape op had a furrowed brow and was highly focused on his job. He was not allowed
ANY errors, whatsoever. His performance moment-to-moment needed to be perfect.

Now in a studio, maybe a very short pause would be acceptable. I still have the
muscle memory; I could thread an Ampex MM1000 or MM1200 and push record in something
under 5 seconds, might even be 3.

I'd be willing to bet any good tape op could do this with any machine of the day in
far less time than it would take to mouse and draw a selection rectangle on screen
(after the zoom was changed, of course), find a menu item to assign the space, click
through to get all the channels into record, etc, etc. Fiddly -- and just plain
stupid.

>a what was going to be recorded. Personally, I wouldn't want to record anyt=
>hing, unless I had a decent idea how long it will take. Besides, if I were =
>the engineer, they'd quickly know their allotted time had expired and I'd h=
>ave to be paid double before continuing.

Depends. Sometimes in a 3 hour session tape barely rolled and maybe you used 15 to
20 minutes. Other times in that same session, things were in a groove and the tape
almost never stopped rolling. You prepare for each.

Given that a digital "track minute" these days probably costs 1,000x less than an
old analog track minute (depending on how you want to calculate costs), you let
things run, and use lots of tracks. (Aesthetically as you work through post, that
can be a two-edged sword, but that's another discussion.)

>And, finally, I'm not arguing that I have more experience than you at recor=
>ding. I'm just stating what I believe is a logical way to record, that's al=
>l.

Sure. And in my environment, "logical" means no unnecessary fiddly steps to get
something going.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[email protected]

November 14th 15, 06:38 PM

What happens if you loose power during or just after a recording.
Does the pre-allocation make it any easier to recover?

John Williamson

November 14th 15, 07:44 PM

On 14/11/2015 18:38, wrote:
> What happens if you loose power during or just after a recording.
> Does the pre-allocation make it any easier to recover?
>
The best software I've found for recovering from a computer failure
during recording is Audacity, as it makes a large number of short audio
files during recording, which it then strings together into a single
output file when you export the recording, keeping the original segments
until you explicitly tell it to delete them. The most you can lose is a
few seconds before the power failure or computer crash.

Available for Windows and Linux and, possibly by now, Mac operating systems.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

geoff

November 15th 15, 03:45 AM

On 13/11/2015 12:03 p.m., JackA wrote:

>>>
>>
>> You think that's bad ? I got majorly put off Cubase every early on
>> when I couldn't record anything. Turns out I needed to draw an
>> empty event on the time-line before I could record into it !!!
>
> That is to allot disc space. If you blindly record, you could be near
> the end of your recording, with high hopes, and up pops a warning OUT
> OF DISC SPACE.
>
> Sort of dumb to do it any other way.

Really ? Since not being turned on by Cubase over 12(?) years ago and
having tried most other DAW software I've *never* had to draw an empty
event to record into, never had to allot disk space in any other way,
and have never come close to running out of disk space during a session.

geoff

geoff

November 15th 15, 03:51 AM

On 14/11/2015 12:49 p.m., Frank Stearns wrote:

>
> This silly pre-allotment thing -- which is apparently unique to Cubase -- is an
> unnecessary pain in the ass. I'd reject Cubase immediately for that single reason
> alone. Now, there might be more to this in terms of how cubase actually operates,
> but if it is as surmized, nope, not an app I'd use for any of my sessions.
>

'This was a long time ago - presumably they'e dumped that idea by now.
Mind you, German software does quite often involve a different way of
thinking. Think Logic in the early (PC) days. Incredibly powerful, but a
pig to learn and totally unintuitive.

Again, no idea what Logic (the DAW application, not the thought process
- that's somebody else) is like now.

geoff

Nil[_2_]

November 15th 15, 04:07 AM

On 14 Nov 2015, geoff > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

>> Sort of dumb to do it any other way.

Completely dumb to think it should be done that way.

> Really ? Since not being turned on by Cubase over 12(?) years ago
> and having tried most other DAW software I've *never* had to draw
> an empty event to record into, never had to allot disk space in
> any other way, and have never come close to running out of disk
> space during a session.

I don't think Cubase requires that step any more, at least according to
this youtube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGQR2GeWqwc

I don't use it myself, but a friend is a Cubase-head, and I've never
heard him complain about that... and he's one who would, if it were a
problem.

Neither Reaper, Sonar, Audition, or Audacity require you to add an
empty event before recording. In all of them you just set up the track
and inputs, press the big red button, and go.

Gray_Wolf

November 15th 15, 05:20 AM

On 11/14/2015 10:07 PM, Nil wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2015, geoff > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
>>> Sort of dumb to do it any other way.
>
> Completely dumb to think it should be done that way.
>
>> Really ? Since not being turned on by Cubase over 12(?) years ago
>> and having tried most other DAW software I've *never* had to draw
>> an empty event to record into, never had to allot disk space in
>> any other way, and have never come close to running out of disk
>> space during a session.
>
> I don't think Cubase requires that step any more, at least according to
> this youtube video:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGQR2GeWqwc
>
> I don't use it myself, but a friend is a Cubase-head, and I've never
> heard him complain about that... and he's one who would, if it were a
> problem.
>
> Neither Reaper, Sonar, Audition, or Audacity require you to add an
> empty event before recording. In all of them you just set up the track
> and inputs, press the big red button, and go.

I wonder if that could a holdover from a tape mindset? i.e. you only have
a set space to record on. I've never had an app that did that. Back in the
late 90's I used to record streaming audio. Just turn it on and let it go.
I was most likely using WaveLab or Cool Edit

Mike Rivers[_2_]

November 15th 15, 01:20 PM

On 11/14/2015 10:45 PM, geoff wrote:
> Since not being turned on by Cubase over 12(?) years ago and having
> tried most other DAW software I've *never* had to draw an empty event
> to record into, never had to allot disk space in any other way, and have
> never come close to running out of disk space during a session.

As I recall, the Alesis HD24 required pre-allocation of recording space.
That recorder used a non-standard way of writing to the disk and they
could handle more tracks faster by knowing beforehand where they'd be
located on disk.

Back in the late 1970s, I was working for the National Weather Service
in a program to replace the fax machines and Teletypes in field offices
with computers. The contractor who got the job of building the systems
used Data General Eclipse computers. They had three different types of
disk file - random (like everybody does it today, sticking blobs of data
wherever it will fit), something else that I don't remember, and
contiguous. A contiguous file used pre-allocated space and the data was
recorded sequentially with only data for that file going into the
allocated space. The graphics files had to be contiguous so that they
could be read out quickly enough to display faster than a fax machine.

But, no, I haven't heard of a DAW that pre-allocates disk space, unless
it's hidden from the user.

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

Frank Stearns

November 15th 15, 03:02 PM

Mike Rivers > writes:

>On 11/14/2015 10:45 PM, geoff wrote:
>> Since not being turned on by Cubase over 12(?) years ago and having
>> tried most other DAW software I've *never* had to draw an empty event
>> to record into, never had to allot disk space in any other way, and have
>> never come close to running out of disk space during a session.

>As I recall, the Alesis HD24 required pre-allocation of recording space.
>That recorder used a non-standard way of writing to the disk and they
>could handle more tracks faster by knowing beforehand where they'd be
>located on disk.

No, preallocation is not required, though some users suggested pre-recording "dead
air" for your anticipated needs -- just in case you lost power. The disk TOC only
got updated each time you pressed stop and theoretically, pre-recording silence
gave a better chance at recovery.

But what a pain -- and for the same reasons as any fixed pre-allocation scheme. But
also what pain if you did lose power -- and part of your recording.

Far simpler (and overall more reliable) to add a 1U UPS to the rack. I have many,
many thousands of hours on my machines and have never lost a gig. (But then, I
stripe duplicate data to a second machine. You can bet I'd start having failures if
that second machine were not around to "scare" the primary machine into behaving.
<w>)

And, for better and faster track management, I will pre-title for the gigs I do, but
not pre-allocate space. Then, while recording a live gig on location, I can keep
things in convenient chunks that might be 15-40 minutes long.

(Typically there will be points at which you can jump to the next pre-allocated
title. Alesis calls them "songs", and 99 songs can live in an overall titled
container called a "project". Given that these management pre-allocated names were
done before I get to the venue, I can switch between them in 1 second or less. You
can do these pre-allocations off-line, using special software that understands the
HD24 disk format. You can set track counts, sample rates, and name things as you
wish with a regular keyboard. Way faster than scrolling around on the HD24
front panel.

Later, after the gig, that same software is used to quickly offload the session
data into your post-production computer.)

In terms of the proprietary file format, Alesis was clever in developing a data
striping scheme that was perfectly happy with the slow drives available back in the
early 2000s (no problems with 24 tracks at 48K 24 bit on a 5400 RPM long seek time
drive).

Tracks are striped in a sort-of contiguous lock-step so that a chunk of track 22
won't be a huge amount of seek time away from track 3 of the same time index.

There is much to recommend the machine, particularly the XR version (much better
converters). Certain aspects feel very much like using an MM1200. It's tragic in
many ways that the machine has been discontinued and that so far, no one has really
duplicated it. The JoeCo box is kinda in the ballpark, but it's far less flexible in
some respects and can be very spendy.

>recorded sequentially with only data for that file going into the
>allocated space. The graphics files had to be contiguous so that they
>could be read out quickly enough to display faster than a fax machine.

Similar idea to the HD24, it sounds like.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

Peter Larsen[_3_]

November 15th 15, 03:26 PM

On 15-11-2015 14:20, Mike Rivers wrote:

> On 11/14/2015 10:45 PM, geoff wrote:
>> Since not being turned on by Cubase over 12(?) years ago and having
>> tried most other DAW software I've *never* had to draw an empty event
>> to record into, never had to allot disk space in any other way, and have
>> never come close to running out of disk space during a session.

> As I recall, the Alesis HD24 required pre-allocation of recording space.

No. Press record and record. Adding files to a drive with the drive on a
computer is another issue, then the virtual tape to put them on has to
exist.

> That recorder used a non-standard way of writing to the disk and they
> could handle more tracks faster by knowing beforehand where they'd be
> located on disk.

It writes a single interlaced file containing all tracks, basically
emulating a whatever it was called that recorded on vhs tape, ie. a
virtual tape. Thus its oddities.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

> Back in the late 1970s, I was working for the National Weather Service
> in a program to replace the fax machines and Teletypes in field offices
> with computers. The contractor who got the job of building the systems
> used Data General Eclipse computers. They had three different types of
> disk file - random (like everybody does it today, sticking blobs of data
> wherever it will fit), something else that I don't remember, and
> contiguous. A contiguous file used pre-allocated space and the data was
> recorded sequentially with only data for that file going into the
> allocated space. The graphics files had to be contiguous so that they
> could be read out quickly enough to display faster than a fax machine.
>
> But, no, I haven't heard of a DAW that pre-allocates disk space, unless
> it's hidden from the user.
>

Mike Rivers[_2_]

November 15th 15, 03:57 PM

On 11/15/2015 10:26 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 15-11-2015 14:20, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> As I recall, the Alesis HD24 required pre-allocation of recording space.
>
> No. Press record and record. Adding files to a drive with the drive on a
> computer is another issue, then the virtual tape to put them on has to
> exist.

I know there was something that required pre-allocated space. What could
I have remembered that I don't remember? Maybe one of the tape-based
digital recorders? I remember that the TASCAM DA-88 preferred having the
tape pre-formatted, but it wasn't necessary.

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

david gourley[_2_]

November 15th 15, 04:53 PM

geoff > said...news:5YqdnYWLtd5pYtrLnZ2dnUU7-
:

> On 13/11/2015 12:03 p.m., JackA wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You think that's bad ? I got majorly put off Cubase every early on
>>> when I couldn't record anything. Turns out I needed to draw an
>>> empty event on the time-line before I could record into it !!!
>>
>> That is to allot disc space. If you blindly record, you could be near
>> the end of your recording, with high hopes, and up pops a warning OUT
>> OF DISC SPACE.
>>
>> Sort of dumb to do it any other way.
>
> Really ? Since not being turned on by Cubase over 12(?) years ago and
> having tried most other DAW software I've *never* had to draw an empty
> event to record into, never had to allot disk space in any other way,
> and have never come close to running out of disk space during a session.
>
> geoff
>
>

Goldwave has always been that way. For whatever reason, the author never
changed it. Last time I saw it, it still didn't allow for any real time
monitoring so you just apply the effects and hope they aren't too heavy-
handed or whatever. That just gives JackAss another reason to troll in the
way he does.

david

Rick Ruskin

November 15th 15, 05:10 PM

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 08:20:12 -0500, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

>On 11/14/2015 10:45 PM, geoff wrote:
>> Since not being turned on by Cubase over 12(?) years ago and having
>> tried most other DAW software I've *never* had to draw an empty event
>> to record into, never had to allot disk space in any other way, and have
>> never come close to running out of disk space during a session.
>
>As I recall, the Alesis HD24 required pre-allocation of recording space.
>That recorder used a non-standard way of writing to the disk and they
>could handle more tracks faster by knowing beforehand where they'd be
>located on disk.
>

the HD24 requires you to choose the number of tracks but not the
amount of time . I leave mine set @ 24 so it is never an issue. I
have enough disks and space on each that economizing isn't an issue.

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

geoff

November 15th 15, 10:24 PM

On 16/11/2015 4:57 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 11/15/2015 10:26 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
>> On 15-11-2015 14:20, Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> As I recall, the Alesis HD24 required pre-allocation of recording
>>> space.
>>
>> No. Press record and record. Adding files to a drive with the drive on a
>> computer is another issue, then the virtual tape to put them on has to
>> exist.
>
> I know there was something that required pre-allocated space. What
> could I have remembered that I don't remember? Maybe one of the
> tape-based digital recorders? I remember that the TASCAM DA-88
> preferred having the tape pre-formatted, but it wasn't necessary.
>

Must get around to fixing mine ! There must be people out there who
would like their DA-88 project session tapes transferred to a more
accessible format for remixing !

geoff

JackA

November 16th 15, 01:50 AM

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 11:55:51 AM UTC-5, david gourley wrote:
> geoff > said...news:5YqdnYWLtd5pYtrLnZ2dnUU7-
> :
>
> > On 13/11/2015 12:03 p.m., JackA wrote:
> >
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> You think that's bad ? I got majorly put off Cubase every early on
> >>> when I couldn't record anything. Turns out I needed to draw an
> >>> empty event on the time-line before I could record into it !!!
> >>
> >> That is to allot disc space. If you blindly record, you could be near
> >> the end of your recording, with high hopes, and up pops a warning OUT
> >> OF DISC SPACE.
> >>
> >> Sort of dumb to do it any other way.
> >
> > Really ? Since not being turned on by Cubase over 12(?) years ago and
> > having tried most other DAW software I've *never* had to draw an empty
> > event to record into, never had to allot disk space in any other way,
> > and have never come close to running out of disk space during a session..
> >
> > geoff
> >
> >
>
> Goldwave has always been that way. For whatever reason, the author never
> changed it. Last time I saw it, it still didn't allow for any real time
> monitoring so you just apply the effects and hope they aren't too heavy-
> handed or whatever.

I haven't a clue what you are talking about. Sorry.
Maybe you mean altering sound and then applying it, then play it back. Maybe no preview is what you can't tolerate. Maybe you need a one-button fix all audio editor? I have admitted, I use WinAmp's real-time equalizer to target what I have to do in Goldmine.

Jack

That just gives JackAss another reason to troll in the
> way he does.
>
> david

JackA

November 16th 15, 03:04 AM

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 10:46:01 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 13/11/2015 12:03 p.m., JackA wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>
> >> You think that's bad ? I got majorly put off Cubase every early on
> >> when I couldn't record anything. Turns out I needed to draw an
> >> empty event on the time-line before I could record into it !!!
> >
> > That is to allot disc space. If you blindly record, you could be near
> > the end of your recording, with high hopes, and up pops a warning OUT
> > OF DISC SPACE.
> >
> > Sort of dumb to do it any other way.
>
> Really ? Since not being turned on by Cubase over 12(?) years ago and
> having tried most other DAW software I've *never* had to draw an empty
> event to record into, never had to allot disk space in any other way,
> and have never come close to running out of disk space during a session.

This just adds to fuel my fire that there are no "professionals" here.

Jack
>
> geoff

JackA

November 16th 15, 03:12 AM

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 10:57:53 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 11/15/2015 10:26 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
> > On 15-11-2015 14:20, Mike Rivers wrote:
> >> As I recall, the Alesis HD24 required pre-allocation of recording space.
> >
> > No. Press record and record. Adding files to a drive with the drive on a
> > computer is another issue, then the virtual tape to put them on has to
> > exist.
>
> I know there was something that required pre-allocated space. What could
> I have remembered that I don't remember? Maybe one of the tape-based
> digital recorders? I remember that the TASCAM DA-88 preferred having the
> tape pre-formatted, but it wasn't necessary.

I'm guessing some of these DAWs are made for people who can't think ahead, sort of like what I see in updates of Windows. You have one push-button audio engineers.

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

Scott Dorsey

November 17th 15, 11:52 PM

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>
>"Uhhhh, 'scuse me, Mr or Ms Talent... I have to break your creative flow now and
>**** you off, because I have to stop the sesion and allocate another hour of session
>space on my crummy software, even though I had an hour assigned because you
>originally told me it was one five minute song..." (Yes, in the old days you were
>changing 2" reels every 16 minutes but those days are gone. People *expect* to now
>be able to stay in the flow.)

It's dramatic how different things are... used to be folks would work hard
to conserve tape and record as little as possible... now the tracking guys
just let the machine roll and roll and leave it to the poor sod in mixdown
to figure out what is actually useful. If they are lucky there are some notes.
--scott

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

Scott Dorsey

November 18th 15, 12:06 AM

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>In the ultimate demanding situation for continuous record, say a live concert,
>two analog machines would be used, each getting the same set of signals. As the tape
>on one neared the end of the current reel, the other machine would be started, and
>there would be some overlap of program material between the two machines.

Okay, so time for stupid war stories.

I'm recording a folk rock band that is sort of on the way up, they have a
record deal but the label is not exactly soaking them with cash. Someone
gets a "really good deal" on time on a truck that is at a stop on the tour
with the plan of recording three nights of concerts in that city for release
as a live album.

So, I talk to the guy with the truck, it is weirdly equipped with two swanky
new ATR-104 machines which can be swapped into 2-track or 4-track for mixdown
(this being the era of the Great Quadrophonic Scare) and some sort of 2"
machine that can only take 10" reels.

So, seeing that the 2" machine is more or less useless in a live concert
situation without a second machine, and seeing that there are only about
six tracks coming off the stage anyway, I figure we run 4-track, devote two
to stage submixes and two to ambient feeds, and rely on the ambient feed.
I get a bunch of tape on 14" pancakes and the appropriate flanges shipped
to the guy, tell him what mike kit I want, and fly in.

So.... it turns out the ATR-100 machines have the motors in the wrong position
to run 14" reels, and when we move them on one machine, it isn't stable with
the big reel. The second machine is totally dead, at least one power supply
is out. So we record the first night at 15 ips on 10" reels with frequent
reel changes, and constant talk on the clearcom with the poor FoH guy who is
telling the band between songs to vamp a little while for our reel changes.

The first guy had the tape wound down to a 10" reel and had the end of it
threaded onto a take up reel so when the band stopped, he hit stop and edit,
pulled the reel holders off while the second guy took both reels off, dropped
two new ones on, put the reel holders on, tensioned the tape and hit stop
and then play. The machine was balky so this did not always go as fast as
it might have.

I had to go in and apologize to the guys afterward. The next night we got
the second machine running. The thing did actually get released and it
sold enough that I should have asked for points.
--scott

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

JackA

November 18th 15, 12:57 AM

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 6:52:56 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Frank Stearns > wrote:
> >
> >"Uhhhh, 'scuse me, Mr or Ms Talent... I have to break your creative flow now and
> >**** you off, because I have to stop the sesion and allocate another hour of session
> >space on my crummy software, even though I had an hour assigned because you
> >originally told me it was one five minute song..." (Yes, in the old days you were
> >changing 2" reels every 16 minutes but those days are gone. People *expect* to now
> >be able to stay in the flow.)

I care less what People today expect, they are stupid, not I. So little talent left in the music world, it's growing pathetic.

Jack

>
> It's dramatic how different things are... used to be folks would work hard
> to conserve tape and record as little as possible... now the tracking guys
> just let the machine roll and roll and leave it to the poor sod in mixdown
> to figure out what is actually useful. If they are lucky there are some notes.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Frank Stearns

November 18th 15, 01:36 AM

JackA > writes:

>On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 6:52:56 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Frank Stearns > wrote:
>> >
>> >"Uhhhh, 'scuse me, Mr or Ms Talent... I have to break your creative flow now and
>> >**** you off, because I have to stop the sesion and allocate another hour of session
>> >space on my crummy software, even though I had an hour assigned because you
>> >originally told me it was one five minute song..." (Yes, in the old days you were
>> >changing 2" reels every 16 minutes but those days are gone. People *expect* to now
>> >be able to stay in the flow.)

>I care less what People today expect, they are stupid, not I. So little talent left
in the music world, it's growing pathetic.

Too bad you haven't experienced working with top-flight people. I'm just thrilled
that the technology now enables me to support them -- nearly completely -- without
derailing what they're doing (assuming I've done the other details of my job
properly).

That's something I saw a lot of as a young engineer: primitive technology frequently
stepping directly into the artist's path, along with plain old engineering
incompetence.

Those weren't my sessions, I was just the gopher, but I learned a ton about the
importance of pre-production and planning (and avoiding session bottlenecks),
something many folks still don't do as thoroughly as they should.

Every gig I do is carefully thought through, every detail planned. But all of that
is mostly hidden from the talent, so that they can feel "casual" but still get right
down to business. Oh, and good pre-planning can actually leave you adequate wiggle
room for the unexpected.

It seems to be a win-win approach. Just finished a bluegrass album that was done
exactly that way. Good players, good voices; they were thrilled because for the
/first time/ they all felt that "the studio" wasn't herding them in a direction that
might not be the best for their way of performing. Great energy and tones; wonderful
synergy from them as a band because no part of what they were doing was being
siphoned off by something artificial or contrived.

Well, truth be told, studio recording is mostly artificial and contrived -- the
trick is to have a good performance blossom on top of all that.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

JackA

November 18th 15, 01:52 AM

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 8:36:18 PM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
> JackA > writes:
>
> >On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 6:52:56 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >> Frank Stearns > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Uhhhh, 'scuse me, Mr or Ms Talent... I have to break your creative flow now and
> >> >**** you off, because I have to stop the sesion and allocate another hour of session
> >> >space on my crummy software, even though I had an hour assigned because you
> >> >originally told me it was one five minute song..." (Yes, in the old days you were
> >> >changing 2" reels every 16 minutes but those days are gone. People *expect* to now
> >> >be able to stay in the flow.)
>
> >I care less what People today expect, they are stupid, not I. So little talent left
> in the music world, it's growing pathetic.
>
> Too bad you haven't experienced working with top-flight people. I'm just thrilled
> that the technology now enables me to support them -- nearly completely -- without
> derailing what they're doing (assuming I've done the other details of my job
> properly).
>
> That's something I saw a lot of as a young engineer: primitive technology frequently
> stepping directly into the artist's path, along with plain old engineering
> incompetence.
>
> Those weren't my sessions, I was just the gopher, but I learned a ton about the
> importance of pre-production and planning (and avoiding session bottlenecks),
> something many folks still don't do as thoroughly as they should.
>
> Every gig I do is carefully thought through, every detail planned. But all of that
> is mostly hidden from the talent, so that they can feel "casual" but still get right
> down to business. Oh, and good pre-planning can actually leave you adequate wiggle
> room for the unexpected.
>
> It seems to be a win-win approach. Just finished a bluegrass album that was done
> exactly that way. Good players, good voices; they were thrilled because for the
> /first time/ they all felt that "the studio" wasn't herding them in a direction that
> might not be the best for their way of performing. Great energy and tones; wonderful
> synergy from them as a band because no part of what they were doing was being
> siphoned off by something artificial or contrived.
>
> Well, truth be told, studio recording is mostly artificial and contrived -- the
> trick is to have a good performance blossom on top of all that.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>
> --
> .

Frank, no disrespect, but you write too much!!! :-)

Keep it short and sweet. You make me feel guilty not covering everything you write!!

Now, I need your honest opinion. Do YOU see/hear the electric guitar dying in Popular music? I do, but I need confirmation others hear it, too.

Listen to Rap music, no musical talent needed. It seemed only to become "popular" as part of a plan to decay the USA.

Me, if I recorded some group, NO OVERDUBBING WOULD BE ALLOWED. If you lack talent and need to overdub, hire more musicians for the group, or go elsewhere. The one group I admire is The Knack - little, if any, overdubbing. They (founder)wanted to sound as good live as in the studio.

Just posted A Little Bit O' Soul (The Music Explosion). Darn fine drummer, but was that really some studio musician? Why I'm confused who to credit, since music is faked. I grew to tolerate overdubbing, still REAL people playing instruments. When did I first realize overdubbing? Back in the 80's, playing my drums to records and radio, figured I needs more than two hands to replicate the drumming!! :)

Jack

Frank Stearns

November 18th 15, 01:55 AM

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

>Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>
>>"Uhhhh, 'scuse me, Mr or Ms Talent... I have to break your creative flow now and
>>**** you off, because I have to stop the sesion and allocate another hour of session
>>space on my crummy software, even though I had an hour assigned because you
>>originally told me it was one five minute song..." (Yes, in the old days you were
>>changing 2" reels every 16 minutes but those days are gone. People *expect* to now
>>be able to stay in the flow.)

>It's dramatic how different things are... used to be folks would work hard
>to conserve tape and record as little as possible... now the tracking guys
>just let the machine roll and roll and leave it to the poor sod in mixdown
>to figure out what is actually useful. If they are lucky there are some notes.

True -- that's what's happened to me lately with some of the mix projects that have
come through the door... stuff like useless notes (or no notes), non-descriptive
track names, etc -- things like using the player's name rather than what they play.
Sheesh. That's okay to a point; you can surely tell the diff between bass and drums.
But what if this is a lead guitar that also plays rhythm, or vice versa? Be nice to
get that ID'd, if for no other reason than you can then ask more intelligent and
to-the-point questions later.

One silver lining of the technology is that even though it can collect a lot of
stuff, you can also go through a "lot of stuff" quickly. With single clicks I can
jump around between takes (or parts of takes) with great speed. Simply by glancing
at the waveform I can usually go to exactly the same place in each take -- with one
click. No need to look at a log sheet to get a tape counter number, hope the hell
the tape op wrote it down correctly, and then fiddle around with the transport to
get there (or even change reels).

With completely random and instant access, there's no need to lose the "flow of
examination" as you select what to use in the final take.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

Frank Stearns

November 18th 15, 02:01 AM

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

>Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>In the ultimate demanding situation for continuous record, say a live concert,
>>two analog machines would be used, each getting the same set of signals. As the tape
>>on one neared the end of the current reel, the other machine would be started, and
>>there would be some overlap of program material between the two machines.

>Okay, so time for stupid war stories.

>I'm recording a folk rock band that is sort of on the way up, they have a
>record deal but the label is not exactly soaking them with cash. Someone
>gets a "really good deal" on time on a truck that is at a stop on the tour
>with the plan of recording three nights of concerts in that city for release
>as a live album.

>So, I talk to the guy with the truck, it is weirdly equipped with two swanky
>new ATR-104 machines which can be swapped into 2-track or 4-track for mixdown
>(this being the era of the Great Quadrophonic Scare) and some sort of 2"
>machine that can only take 10" reels.

>So, seeing that the 2" machine is more or less useless in a live concert
>situation without a second machine, and seeing that there are only about
>six tracks coming off the stage anyway, I figure we run 4-track, devote two
>to stage submixes and two to ambient feeds, and rely on the ambient feed.
>I get a bunch of tape on 14" pancakes and the appropriate flanges shipped
>to the guy, tell him what mike kit I want, and fly in.

>So.... it turns out the ATR-100 machines have the motors in the wrong position
>to run 14" reels, and when we move them on one machine, it isn't stable with
>the big reel. The second machine is totally dead, at least one power supply
>is out. So we record the first night at 15 ips on 10" reels with frequent
>reel changes, and constant talk on the clearcom with the poor FoH guy who is
>telling the band between songs to vamp a little while for our reel changes.

>The first guy had the tape wound down to a 10" reel and had the end of it
>threaded onto a take up reel so when the band stopped, he hit stop and edit,
>pulled the reel holders off while the second guy took both reels off, dropped
>two new ones on, put the reel holders on, tensioned the tape and hit stop
>and then play. The machine was balky so this did not always go as fast as
>it might have.

>I had to go in and apologize to the guys afterward. The next night we got
>the second machine running. The thing did actually get released and it
>sold enough that I should have asked for points.

Great story.

Funny thing about the ATRs, though. The pair of 102s purchased by a studio where I
used to work also had a power supply die on one of them less than a month after
going into service.

The crowbar sort of did its job -- though apparently for no reason. Hans Sproder
(IIRC), THE field service guy for Ampex of the day, actually did the fix. He could
find no reason why; the crowbar simply shorted and took down the supply. Weird.
Never happened again.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[email protected]

November 18th 15, 01:54 PM

> Problem I see is that you then become the engineer and producer
> with no effective producer in the session. Crazy way to run a train IMHO.
>
> ==
> Later...
> Ron Capik
> --

So this is a good discussion...
I'm a hobby level recording person, an EE by profession....

so I come to RAP to learn not so muchabout the technology, but about the logistics of recording, relations with the talent etc. (not that kind of relations :-) )

Here is my question..

When a group wants to record for the first time, the biggest question in my mind is always... Should they perform all together like they are accustomed to, or should we record them in isolation one by one or in separate iso areas.

I see this as a tradeoff between making it easy for the talent vs making it easy for the engineer.

My actual question, is DO YOU EVEN ASK THE TALENT ABOUT THIS.... or do you size them up and make the decision yourself. I can see that if you burden the talent with making this decision, they are already put off. Is this something the engineer, producer should desicde without consulting the talent?

So the 3 options are:

1) Don' ask them, just tell them they can play together just like they are used to (and I'll deal with mic placement etc to get isolation I need)

2) Don't ask them, just tell them they are in a studio environment and need to play apart

3) Discuss the question with the group. Which may put unwanted burden on them.

thanks

Mark

Mike Rivers[_2_]

November 18th 15, 02:08 PM

On 11/17/2015 8:36 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> Just finished a bluegrass album that was done
> exactly that way. Good players, good voices; they were thrilled because for the
> /first time/ they all felt that "the studio" wasn't herding them in a direction that
> might not be the best for their way of performing. Great energy and tones; wonderful
> synergy from them as a band because no part of what they were doing was being
> siphoned off by something artificial or contrived.

The contrived or artificial parts are brought on by the artists' desires
to make what they think is a great record. When I'm recording an
acoustic band that plays together, I remind them that we won't be able
to fix things because of leakage. That's a problem that isn't going to
go away unless we put the band in an artificial situation. I tell them
that we can do a few takes and hopefully edit them to take care of
things that they want fixed, but I don't make them play to a click just
so the pieces fit together.

Probably the biggest benefit I get from the "new recording" technology
is that I don't have to say "wait a minute while I change reels" when
they want to do a second take. But I don't think I've ever had anyone
thrown off or ****ed off by that, they don't mind a little break, even
to rewind to the beginning of the take. I wonder how many artists thrive
on "let's do another one right now" as soon as the last note had died
out. Some do, some don't, and some just want to play.

I don't work with top flight artists, but I don't work with unprepared
artists or people who want to create something in the studio that they
can't do in real life. That's what home studios are for.

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

Peter Larsen[_3_]

November 18th 15, 04:08 PM

On 18-11-2015 14:54, wrote:

> Here is my question..

> When a group wants to record for the first time, the biggest question in
> my mind is always... Should they perform all together like they are
accustomed to
> or should we record them in isolation one by one or in separate iso
areas.

What problem do you have to solve? - there HAS to be a reason for the
iso-solution, and mind you, this is about music, so it has to be a
musical reason. If it is a 6 piece band that wants to perform 18 voices
in the final product, then overdubs become a musical requirement. One by
one is not. It is quite possibly always bad. The iso recording is for
the solo's that ride on top of the oeuvre, it could be vox, but it could
also be cowbell. It is only the basement diy studios that need to build
layers one performer at a time. Internet coops have also used that
strategy, but what is isn't is ensemble playing and that is what most
music is about.

Note: when you record an ensemble, then isolation is nice for you, it
facilitates the mix. But eye contact is usually required for the
musicians if you want the end result to constitute music.

> I see this as a tradeoff between making it easy for the talent
> vs making it easy for the engineer.

It is not about making it easy, it is about the end target. First define
that.

> My actual question, is DO YOU EVEN ASK THE TALENT ABOUT THIS....
> or do you size them up and make the decision yourself.

The biggest recording error I have ever made was one recording that did
need a prior meeting to talk the choices, the priorities and the method
through. I don't advocate making it difficult, but forget "making it
easy" as parameter. Define the outcome and agree on a possible road to
get there.

> I can see that if you burden the talent with making this decision,
> they are already put off. Is this something the engineer, producer
> should desicde without consulting the talent?

You are way off of the target. Musicians define what is possible for
them, you define what is possible for you. Those concerns have to be
simultanously meetable for a good outcome.

> So the 3 options are:

> 1) Don' ask them, just tell them they can play together just like
> they are used to (and I'll deal with mic placement etc to get
> isolation I need)

Ask them what result they want and what musical concerns they have.
Listen to their concerns and if you have concerns that are ultimate,
then explain them, but do not play the "must be so card" too often.

> 2) Don't ask them, just tell them they are in a studio environment
> and need to play apart

There is no logically valid progression as described, it is well known
and described in the literature that ensemble playing in a studio
environment is often a very good choice. It could be a partial ensemble
for all kinds of practical reasons, but starting with less than the
basic rhythm - irrelevant of genre or style - is hardly ever a good
idea. And that basic section may be anything from keyboard, bass and
drums to a full symphonic ensemble that you then overdub cathedral bells
and 24 pound cannons on top of.

> 3) Discuss the question with the group. Which may put unwanted
> burden on them.

They should then focus on the day job. Don't ask them how to align a
multitrack or what mic to use on the soprano, but you do have to ask
them what result they want and then help define the route to get there.
You have to understand their concerns and they yours.

Example: vocalists in classical context. They KNOW they sound best at 6
to 8 feet, you should know that they are right. So what you have to do
is to make them understand that yes, you can do that, but that it will
destroy orchestra imaging and that you can mimic that sound reasonably
if you can get their acceptance of a mic only 2 to 3 feet away. If you
fail to do that diplomacy and just put the mic "your kind of close" they
WILL back away to 6 feet, because they know that it makes their voice
sound absolutely best. They have ensemble discipline, but they need to
know why mic placement comes under those concerns.

Beware of undefined variables!

> Mark

This is not the unique sole right way to do it. But you need to get
expectations defined, understood and respected. A lot of formality is
not always relevant and always remember that a happy musician makes good
music. And happy musicians are more likely to want to trust you with
their souls. Usually just that is what they do.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Frank Stearns

November 18th 15, 05:47 PM

JackA > writes:

-snips-

>Frank, no disrespect, but you write too much!!! :-)

Sorry, I don't think in 140 character snippets.

>Keep it short and sweet. You make me feel guilty not covering everything yo=
>u write!!

Uh, that's your issue, I'm afraid. Read or don't read as you wish.

>Now, I need your honest opinion. Do YOU see/hear the electric guitar dying =
>in Popular music? I do, but I need confirmation others hear it, too.

Pop music is not my field. Don't know.

>Listen to Rap music, no musical talent needed. It seemed only to become "po=
>pular" as part of a plan to decay the USA.

I can actually buy into that at some levels.

>Me, if I recorded some group, NO OVERDUBBING WOULD BE ALLOWED. If you lack =
>talent and need to overdub, hire more musicians for the group, or go elsewh=
>ere. The one group I admire is The Knack - little, if any, overdubbing. The=
>y (founder)wanted to sound as good live as in the studio.

Really depends. Some overdubbing is silly, some is sweet, some is the realization of
a remarkable vision by the artist. In the end, the question is whether it has
musical merit or not. And the only way to really judge that is whether it will be
played or sought after 3-500 years from now.

Frank

--

JackA

November 18th 15, 05:59 PM

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 12:47:14 PM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
> JackA > writes:
>
> -snips-
>
> >Frank, no disrespect, but you write too much!!! :-)
>
> Sorry, I don't think in 140 character snippets.
>
> >Keep it short and sweet. You make me feel guilty not covering everything yo=
> >u write!!
>
> Uh, that's your issue, I'm afraid. Read or don't read as you wish.
>
>
> >Now, I need your honest opinion. Do YOU see/hear the electric guitar dying =
> >in Popular music? I do, but I need confirmation others hear it, too.
>
> Pop music is not my field. Don't know.
>
> >Listen to Rap music, no musical talent needed. It seemed only to become "po=
> >pular" as part of a plan to decay the USA.
>
> I can actually buy into that at some levels.
>
> >Me, if I recorded some group, NO OVERDUBBING WOULD BE ALLOWED. If you lack =
> >talent and need to overdub, hire more musicians for the group, or go elsewh=
> >ere. The one group I admire is The Knack - little, if any, overdubbing. The=
> >y (founder)wanted to sound as good live as in the studio.
>
> Really depends. Some overdubbing is silly, some is sweet, some is the realization of
> a remarkable vision by the artist. In the end, the question is whether it has
> musical merit or not. And the only way to really judge that is whether it will be
> played or sought after 3-500 years from now.

Friend sent me a hit UK/US song from 1959, amazed it was stereo recorded in the UK.
Sure, man could create fine stereo, but overdubbing, like many Beatles songs, caused them to become lopsided stereo. Needed greater talent or a real audio engineer who would warn the "boys" top dog, G. Martin, that he was making a mistake.

But, really, I read stories about Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys only having one ear hearing; why a lot of BB tunes surfaced in mono; he "mixed" them. Really? But, more recently, you read about Brian heading over to Australia, since someone digitized a BB tune in Stereo, only available on tape in mono. What, did Brian all the sudden regain hearing in both ears?

Rap? I really don't have a problems with it, with lyrics that are decent. Ran across a song, I think they used Blue Note Records intro. An enjoyably song about the '90's.

Pop music, I make it my field of interest. :)

Jack

>
> Frank
>
> --
> .

JackA

November 18th 15, 08:00 PM

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 1:03:23 PM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 17:52:44 -0800 (PST), JackA
> > wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 8:36:18 PM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
> >> JackA > writes:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 6:52:56 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >> >> Frank Stearns > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Uhhhh, 'scuse me, Mr or Ms Talent... I have to break your creative flow now and
> >> >> >**** you off, because I have to stop the sesion and allocate another hour of session
> >> >> >space on my crummy software, even though I had an hour assigned because you
> >> >> >originally told me it was one five minute song..." (Yes, in the old days you were
> >> >> >changing 2" reels every 16 minutes but those days are gone. People *expect* to now
> >> >> >be able to stay in the flow.)
> >>
> >> >I care less what People today expect, they are stupid, not I. So little talent left
> >> in the music world, it's growing pathetic.
> >>
> >> Too bad you haven't experienced working with top-flight people. I'm just thrilled
> >> that the technology now enables me to support them -- nearly completely -- without
> >> derailing what they're doing (assuming I've done the other details of my job
> >> properly).
> >>
> >> That's something I saw a lot of as a young engineer: primitive technology frequently
> >> stepping directly into the artist's path, along with plain old engineering
> >> incompetence.
> >>
> >> Those weren't my sessions, I was just the gopher, but I learned a ton about the
> >> importance of pre-production and planning (and avoiding session bottlenecks),
> >> something many folks still don't do as thoroughly as they should.
> >>
> >> Every gig I do is carefully thought through, every detail planned. But all of that
> >> is mostly hidden from the talent, so that they can feel "casual" but still get right
> >> down to business. Oh, and good pre-planning can actually leave you adequate wiggle
> >> room for the unexpected.
> >>
> >> It seems to be a win-win approach. Just finished a bluegrass album that was done
> >> exactly that way. Good players, good voices; they were thrilled because for the
> >> /first time/ they all felt that "the studio" wasn't herding them in a direction that
> >> might not be the best for their way of performing. Great energy and tones; wonderful
> >> synergy from them as a band because no part of what they were doing was being
> >> siphoned off by something artificial or contrived.
> >>
> >> Well, truth be told, studio recording is mostly artificial and contrived -- the
> >> trick is to have a good performance blossom on top of all that.
> >>
> >> Frank
> >> Mobile Audio
> >>
> >> --
> >> .
> >
> >Frank, no disrespect, but you write too much!!! :-)
> >
> >Keep it short and sweet. You make me feel guilty not covering everything you write!!
> >
> >Now, I need your honest opinion. Do YOU see/hear the electric guitar dying in Popular music? I do, but I need confirmation others hear it, too.
> >
> >Listen to Rap music, no musical talent needed. It seemed only to become "popular" as part of a plan to decay the USA.
> >
> >Me, if I recorded some group, NO OVERDUBBING WOULD BE ALLOWED. If you lack talent and need to overdub, hire more musicians for the group, or go elsewhere. The one group I admire is The Knack - little, if any, overdubbing. They (founder)wanted to sound as good live as in the studio.
> >
> >Just posted A Little Bit O' Soul (The Music Explosion). Darn fine drummer, but was that really some studio musician? Why I'm confused who to credit, since music is faked. I grew to tolerate overdubbing, still REAL people playing instruments. When did I first realize overdubbing? Back in the 80's, playing my drums to records and radio, figured I needs more than two hands to replicate the drumming!! :)
> >
> >Jack
>
> No overdubbing? Bye bye Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd. They are
> clearly rubbish. There is no problem with overdubbing, it keeps the
> artistic input consistent and saves splitting up the cash too many
> ways - important for a band. As for live performances - do something
> different, but equally good. The fans haven't turned up to hear the
> record playing anyway (OK, that's exactly what they have turned up for
> with the more youthful of today's cohort).

Overdubbing? Save it for the non professionals. It seems like a plague in Pop music. Don't feel it's wanted in Jazz, Classical and other forms of music. If you need to overdub and lie to your fans, good luck. It's like do whatever necessary to achieve a hit. Poor musicians? Hire some to actually record for more impressive sound, but credit group members.

Live recordings? There's still some decent audio people out there, like the rerecord of Eric Clapton's "Layla". Not bad!!

Jack
>
> d
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Don Pearce[_3_]

November 18th 15, 09:25 PM

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:00:13 -0800 (PST), JackA
> wrote:

>> No overdubbing? Bye bye Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd. They are
>> clearly rubbish. There is no problem with overdubbing, it keeps the
>> artistic input consistent and saves splitting up the cash too many
>> ways - important for a band. As for live performances - do something
>> different, but equally good. The fans haven't turned up to hear the
>> record playing anyway (OK, that's exactly what they have turned up for
>> with the more youthful of today's cohort).
>
>Overdubbing? Save it for the non professionals. It seems like a plague in Pop music. Don't feel it's wanted in Jazz, Classical and other forms of music. If you need to overdub and lie to your fans, good luck. It's like do whatever necessary to achieve a hit. Poor musicians? Hire some to actually record for more impressive sound, but credit group members.
>
>Live recordings? There's still some decent audio people out there, like the rerecord of Eric Clapton's "Layla". Not bad!!
>
>Jack

It's not lying. It's another way of making music. Do you object to a
painter who paints the red as well as the blue? He should get another
painter to do the red, surely. Any painting is a series of overlays
done by one, or a few painter(s) at different times. That doesn't
invalidate it as a work of art.

Every recording is not a "record of a performance". Some of them are
carefully crafted constructions. Maybe as such they will only exist in
recorded format. That's fine. There is no law that says they must be
performable live. Some are, of course - Brian May says that Bohemian
Rhapsody was one of Queen's easier pieces to perform live. For you, of
course, it isn't even music.

You appear to have a very narrow view of what constitutes music. One
must pity you and such limitations.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

geoff

November 18th 15, 10:03 PM

On 19/11/2015 2:54 a.m., wrote:
>> Problem I see is that you then become the engineer and producer
>> with no effective producer in the session. Crazy way to run a train IMHO.
>>
>> ==
>> Later...
>> Ron Capik
>> --
> So this is a good discussion...
> I'm a hobby level recording person, an EE by profession....
>
> so I come to RAP to learn not so muchabout the technology, but about the logistics of recording, relations with the talent etc. (not that kind of relations :-) )
>
> Here is my question..
>
> When a group wants to record for the first time, the biggest question in my mind is always... Should they perform all together like they are accustomed to, or should we record them in isolation one by one or in separate iso areas.

Somewhat depends on:
- The recording space and what is actually possible in it.
- How the band *wants* to record.
- The desired attributes desired in the final recording (somewhat
limited by the space).

But even if the recording space makes everybody playing at once 'too
compromised' wrt the desired end product, certainly a run-through all
together (if possible record it for reference) is very highly desirable.

And then you might have a hugely professional and skilled group turn up
who are already totally together, and maybe they want to and can do
simply record individually straight off.

It would be usual to a minimum have bass and drums playing live
together, bass maybe DI-ed. A miked bass part can easily be added later
if desired, as the musical interaction is already there, to a degree.

Just my opinion.

geoff

geoff

November 18th 15, 10:06 PM

On 19/11/2015 10:49 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> .
>
> This is true. And it's not unreasonable to call the construction
> "music." However, given enough skilled players and singers, such
> construction could be performed live. That it's not convenient to do
> that, or it's not in the artist's vision (he has to show us that he
> can sing, play piano, bass, drums, and all the other instruments from
> accordion to zither), then there is a modern recording technique to
> allow him to create his work of art.

Phew - was a bit worried that you were starting to get a bit jackish
there for a minute Mike ;-)

geoff

ssinzig

November 19th 15, 12:36 AM

JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 12:47:14 PM UTC-5, Frank Stearns
> wrote:
>> JackA > writes:
>>
>> -snips-
>>
>>> Frank, no disrespect, but you write too much!!! :-)
>>
>> Sorry, I don't think in 140 character snippets.
>>
>>> Keep it short and sweet. You make me feel guilty not covering
>>> everything yo= u write!!
>>
>> Uh, that's your issue, I'm afraid. Read or don't read as you wish.
>>
>>
>>> Now, I need your honest opinion. Do YOU see/hear the electric
>>> guitar dying = in Popular music? I do, but I need confirmation
>>> others hear it, too.
>>
>> Pop music is not my field. Don't know.
>>
>>> Listen to Rap music, no musical talent needed. It seemed only to
>>> become "po= pular" as part of a plan to decay the USA.
>>
>> I can actually buy into that at some levels.
>>
>>> Me, if I recorded some group, NO OVERDUBBING WOULD BE ALLOWED. If
>>> you lack = talent and need to overdub, hire more musicians for
>>> the group, or go elsewh= ere. The one group I admire is The Knack
>>> - little, if any, overdubbing. The= y (founder)wanted to sound as
>>> good live as in the studio.
>>
>> Really depends. Some overdubbing is silly, some is sweet, some is
>> the realization of a remarkable vision by the artist. In the end,
>> the question is whether it has musical merit or not. And the only
>> way to really judge that is whether it will be played or sought
>> after 3-500 years from now.
>
> Friend sent me a hit UK/US song from 1959, amazed it was stereo
> recorded in the UK. Sure, man could create fine stereo, but
> overdubbing, like many Beatles songs, caused them to become lopsided
> stereo. Needed greater talent or a real audio engineer who would warn
> the "boys" top dog, G. Martin, that he was making a mistake.
>
> But, really, I read stories about Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys only
> having one ear hearing; why a lot of BB tunes surfaced in mono; he
> "mixed" them. Really? But, more recently, you read about Brian
> heading over to Australia, since someone digitized a BB tune in
> Stereo, only available on tape in mono. What, did Brian all the
> sudden regain hearing in both ears?
>
> Rap? I really don't have a problems with it, with lyrics that are
> decent. Ran across a song, I think they used Blue Note Records intro.
> An enjoyably song about the '90's.
>
> Pop music, I make it my field of interest. :)
>
> Jack
>
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -- .
>

Funny you should mention Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys.

I understand that Brian Wilsons father/manager was a real pain in the
ass when they were in the recording studio. He would constantly complain
to the engineers that they didn't know what they were doing and would
fiddle with the controls on the recording console. To shut him up and
keep him out of the way they wired in a console all for himself. He
could fiddle with the controls to his hearts content, of course the
console was not in the recording chain, none of his 'improvements' made
it to the recording.
Sounds like someone familiar, huh?

I also understand that not only was he jerk in the recording studio, he
completely screwed over the boys by selling the rights to their songs to
a record company. Of course, keeping the profits for himself. Apparently
a complete asshole of a human being.

On a side note, Brian Wilson did have hearing damage in one ear. Didn't
affect his musical genius though, and their recordings were amazing
anyway. I have "Endless Summer', recorded in stereo, and it certainly
sounds great to my ears, though it doesn't have the 'ping-pong' stereo
you seem to like.

S.

Les Cargill[_4_]

November 19th 15, 12:39 AM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 17:52:44 -0800 (PST), JackA
> > wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 8:36:18 PM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
>>> JackA > writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 6:52:56 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>> Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Uhhhh, 'scuse me, Mr or Ms Talent... I have to break your creative flow now and
>>>>>> **** you off, because I have to stop the sesion and allocate another hour of session
>>>>>> space on my crummy software, even though I had an hour assigned because you
>>>>>> originally told me it was one five minute song..." (Yes, in the old days you were
>>>>>> changing 2" reels every 16 minutes but those days are gone. People *expect* to now
>>>>>> be able to stay in the flow.)
>>>
>>>> I care less what People today expect, they are stupid, not I. So little talent left
>>> in the music world, it's growing pathetic.
>>>
>>> Too bad you haven't experienced working with top-flight people. I'm just thrilled
>>> that the technology now enables me to support them -- nearly completely -- without
>>> derailing what they're doing (assuming I've done the other details of my job
>>> properly).
>>>
>>> That's something I saw a lot of as a young engineer: primitive technology frequently
>>> stepping directly into the artist's path, along with plain old engineering
>>> incompetence.
>>>
>>> Those weren't my sessions, I was just the gopher, but I learned a ton about the
>>> importance of pre-production and planning (and avoiding session bottlenecks),
>>> something many folks still don't do as thoroughly as they should.
>>>
>>> Every gig I do is carefully thought through, every detail planned. But all of that
>>> is mostly hidden from the talent, so that they can feel "casual" but still get right
>>> down to business. Oh, and good pre-planning can actually leave you adequate wiggle
>>> room for the unexpected.
>>>
>>> It seems to be a win-win approach. Just finished a bluegrass album that was done
>>> exactly that way. Good players, good voices; they were thrilled because for the
>>> /first time/ they all felt that "the studio" wasn't herding them in a direction that
>>> might not be the best for their way of performing. Great energy and tones; wonderful
>>> synergy from them as a band because no part of what they were doing was being
>>> siphoned off by something artificial or contrived.
>>>
>>> Well, truth be told, studio recording is mostly artificial and contrived -- the
>>> trick is to have a good performance blossom on top of all that.
>>>
>>> Frank
>>> Mobile Audio
>>>
>>> --
>>> .
>>
>> Frank, no disrespect, but you write too much!!! :-)
>>
>> Keep it short and sweet. You make me feel guilty not covering everything you write!!
>>
>> Now, I need your honest opinion. Do YOU see/hear the electric guitar dying in Popular music? I do, but I need confirmation others hear it, too.
>>
>> Listen to Rap music, no musical talent needed. It seemed only to become "popular" as part of a plan to decay the USA.
>>
>> Me, if I recorded some group, NO OVERDUBBING WOULD BE ALLOWED. If you lack talent and need to overdub, hire more musicians for the group, or go elsewhere. The one group I admire is The Knack - little, if any, overdubbing. They (founder)wanted to sound as good live as in the studio.
>>
>> Just posted A Little Bit O' Soul (The Music Explosion). Darn fine drummer, but was that really some studio musician? Why I'm confused who to credit, since music is faked. I grew to tolerate overdubbing, still REAL people playing instruments. When did I first realize overdubbing? Back in the 80's, playing my drums to records and radio, figured I needs more than two hands to replicate the drumming!! :)
>>
>> Jack
>
> No overdubbing? Bye bye Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd. They are
> clearly rubbish. There is no problem with overdubbing, it keeps the
> artistic input consistent and saves splitting up the cash too many
> ways - important for a band. As for live performances - do something
> different, but equally good.

Or, as they do these days, hire ringers to fill things in. It's
nearly standard practice.

> The fans haven't turned up to hear the
> record playing anyway (OK, that's exactly what they have turned up for
> with the more youthful of today's cohort).
>

That's what we ( including non-musicians ) *USED* to turn up for, but
then they all more or less achieved that. They weren't the very first ,
but Kansas was one of the first bands that could do it all live.

It's hard to believe but for a long time, being able
to play your own record was unusual if it happened at all. In pop
music, musicianship has come a long way since I was even in high school
( late '70s ).

> d
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>

--
Les Cargill

Scott Dorsey

November 19th 15, 01:17 AM

Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>No overdubbing? Bye bye Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd. They are
>clearly rubbish. There is no problem with overdubbing, it keeps the
>artistic input consistent and saves splitting up the cash too many
>ways - important for a band. As for live performances - do something
>different, but equally good. The fans haven't turned up to hear the
>record playing anyway (OK, that's exactly what they have turned up for
>with the more youthful of today's cohort).

Well, the thing is that when you have a loud band with a backline, there
is no way to get clean vocals without overdubbing. Because the rock band
can only be balanced with electronic aid, you're limited in your ability
to get a clean vocal without a lot of leakage.

There are tricks you can use to get a little more isolation, but forget
having anyone playing drums and singing at the same time. It's not going
to work out.

I'm not sure Mr. Agnew even knows what overdubbing is. It's clear he
doesn't have any understanding of leakage or cancellation and is reluctant
to attempts to explain it to him. I think he just knows that he'll get
a reaction by saying a particular thing so he does; his only goal is to
get a reaction and he doesn't actually have anything to say himself.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mike Rivers[_2_]

November 19th 15, 01:47 AM

On 11/18/2015 5:11 PM, Don Pearce wrote:

> You can do most things given enough players and singers, but do you
> have the time and opportunity to rehearse them, and can you afford to
> pay them?

I don't think that time and money is the only reason for recording
piecemeal. It's more a matter of convenience and a more efficient way of
achieving a higher level of perfection. There's ego involved, too. If
you can get Stevie Wonder to play on your recording by sending him a
file and having him send you back a part, that might be good for sales,
though it doesn't necessarily make the recording better.

> I mean it is not necessary to reproduce the record live. If you are
> going to do that, you may as well get a DJ instead.

A good DJ can be more entertaining than a famous artist with a small
band playing to recorded tracks. I don't recall whose show it was, but I
recently read an article in which the house engineer said that he uses
time code to automate much of the console during the show. That's
practically playing the record for the audience.

If you're talking about major artists, what the audience wants to hear
IS the record. Maybe not all the songs on it in the order that they're
on the album, maybe a new song, maybe a few old songs, but for most
artists, they expect to hear what they know. There are, of course,
artists who are known for never performing a song the same twice, and
their audiences expect that.

> The live version
> of a multi-tracked song can be something different - pared back. Layla
> was mentioned and it is a good case in point. The original with
> Delaney and Bonnie was a huge production number, but Clapton regularly
> does his acoustic version with a totally different swing rhythm. It is
> still recognizably the same song, and for the most part equally well
> received.

I like the original version. The acoustic version does nothing for me. I
think the reason that it's well received is that it's become an
established version. But then I like Del McCoury's version of 1952
Vincent Black Lightning better than Richard Thompson's.

> On the occasions when he has a big enough band to do the
> original he invariably gives the main recognizable riff to a guest
> guitarist.

I wonder why he doesn't travel with a band that can do his songs the way
most people remember them. Not enough money, I guess. Or maybe he just
wants to do them a different way.

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

geoff

November 19th 15, 02:52 AM

On 19/11/2015 2:17 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote
> Well, the thing is that when you have a loud band with a backline, there
> is no way to get clean vocals without overdubbing.

Vocal booth, with visibility ?

geoff

Nil[_2_]

November 19th 15, 03:49 AM

On 18 Nov 2015, (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> I'm not sure Mr. Agnew even knows what overdubbing is. It's clear
> he doesn't have any understanding of leakage or cancellation and
> is reluctant to attempts to explain it to him.

He clearly has absolutely no idea how music is recorded. Every
single one of his post comes from a position of utter and purposeful
misunderstanding of how and why it's done. To try to correct the
misconceptions would be a fulltime job... except that he obviously
doesn't want to know the truth. He'd rather cling to his absurd
fantasies.

> I think he just knows that he'll get a reaction by saying a
> particular thing so he does; his only goal is to get a reaction
> and he doesn't actually have anything to say himself. --scott

Bingo.

None

November 19th 15, 04:46 AM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> I wonder why he doesn't travel with a band that can do his songs the
> way most people remember them. Not enough money, I guess. Or maybe
> he just wants to do them a different way.

Well, aside from the fact that he doesn't really "travel with a band"
any more, he may just be doing things differently to keep it musically
interesting. And because some (most?) of the key players on the
"classic" version are dead or retired. Maybe he doesn't want to be in
a Dominos tribute band.

It gets really boring doing the same song the exact same way for
decades. There are songs I've been playing since the 1970's, and if I
had to play them the way they were played back then, it would drive me
crazy. And the lead singer on some of them died more than a decade
ago; nobody sings like him, and nobody's interested in trying to copy
his original recordings note-for-note. A song played live evolves over
time, unlike a recording.

I seriously doubt he's doing a different version for the money. He's
doing it for the music.

Nil[_2_]

November 19th 15, 05:52 AM

On 18 Nov 2015, "None" > wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> Well, aside from the fact that he doesn't really "travel with a
> band" any more, he may just be doing things differently to keep it
> musically interesting. And because some (most?) of the key players
> on the "classic" version are dead or retired. Maybe he doesn't
> want to be in a Dominos tribute band.

Clapton's bands usually have the right instrumentation to do the
original arrangement of Layla if they want. I seem to recall him once
saying that he had trouble summoning a suitably passionate vocal
because he had performed it so many time.

> It gets really boring doing the same song the exact same way for
> decades. There are songs I've been playing since the 1970's, and
> if I had to play them the way they were played back then, it would
> drive me crazy.

The unplugged version of Layla is itself almost 25 years old. I'd think
he'd be getting tired of that one, too. I guess it has the advantage of
taking less energy and commitment to play, and it gets over quicker.

Scott Dorsey

November 19th 15, 12:42 PM

geoff > wrote:
>On 19/11/2015 2:17 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote
>> Well, the thing is that when you have a loud band with a backline, there
>> is no way to get clean vocals without overdubbing.
>
>Vocal booth, with visibility ?

Can work well, as long as the singer isn't playing an instrument too.
In which case it can go horribly wrong.

Some folks like to put the drummer in a booth and remote the guitar amps.

All of these approaches can sometimes work and sometimes make performers
feel like they are playing in a plastic bubble and totally kill any sense
of ensemble.
--scott

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

Mike Rivers[_2_]

November 19th 15, 01:18 PM

On 11/19/2015 12:52 AM, Nil wrote:
> The unplugged version of Layla is itself almost 25 years old. I'd think
> he'd be getting tired of that one, too. I guess it has the advantage of
> taking less energy and commitment to play, and it gets over quicker.

That sounds reasonable to me. He knows that he's obligated to do the
song, and those who expect to hear it probably don't care how he does
it. Speaking of someone who isn't a raving Clapton fan, I'd rather he
fill that slot in his shows with something new that he's working on
rather than a not very interesting version of one of his greatest hits.

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

Frank Stearns

November 19th 15, 01:38 PM

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

>geoff > wrote:
>>On 19/11/2015 2:17 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote
>>> Well, the thing is that when you have a loud band with a backline, there
>>> is no way to get clean vocals without overdubbing.
>>
>>Vocal booth, with visibility ?

>Can work well, as long as the singer isn't playing an instrument too.
>In which case it can go horribly wrong.

>Some folks like to put the drummer in a booth and remote the guitar amps.

>All of these approaches can sometimes work and sometimes make performers
>feel like they are playing in a plastic bubble and totally kill any sense
>of ensemble.

All very true.

The recent bluegrass project done here was cut all live, and the players loved it.
(Their last album, done elsewhere, had some of the players in iso booths. Being
acoustic players, they were not thrilled about that.)

If you set up the room right, use the right mics in good positions, and have
instrumentation and voices that are all of roughly the same acoustic level, you can
actually get pretty workable isolation. I had enough to do a few selective pitch and
timing edits without anything sounding weird.

And, sometimes, a little leakage can add something to the overall sound. IIRC, this
was Rudy Van Gelder's "secret sauce" and he guarded that secret jealously.

Bottom line: if the players aren't happy as the take going down, it's a lot harder
to get a good performance. It might be "ideal" from an engineering point of view but
then you struggle and stuggle with the mix -- not because the sonics are bad, but
because you don't have any "musical soul" upon which to build that mix.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[email protected]

November 19th 15, 02:11 PM

Mike Rivers wrote: "Speaking of someone who isn't a raving Clapton fan, I'd rather he
fill that slot in his shows with something new that he's working on
rather than a not very interesting version of one of his greatest hits.
- show quoted text -"

Nope - I, on the other hand, am a 99-percenter. In two
regards: I am a big Clapton fan(though not raving!), and,
I actually would not mind hearing him perform 3-4 hours
of nothing but his greatest hits. :)

JackA

November 19th 15, 03:09 PM

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:25:34 PM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:00:13 -0800 (PST), JackA
> > wrote:
>
> >> No overdubbing? Bye bye Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd. They are
> >> clearly rubbish. There is no problem with overdubbing, it keeps the
> >> artistic input consistent and saves splitting up the cash too many
> >> ways - important for a band. As for live performances - do something
> >> different, but equally good. The fans haven't turned up to hear the
> >> record playing anyway (OK, that's exactly what they have turned up for
> >> with the more youthful of today's cohort).
> >
> >Overdubbing? Save it for the non professionals. It seems like a plague in Pop music. Don't feel it's wanted in Jazz, Classical and other forms of music. If you need to overdub and lie to your fans, good luck. It's like do whatever necessary to achieve a hit. Poor musicians? Hire some to actually record for more impressive sound, but credit group members.
> >
> >Live recordings? There's still some decent audio people out there, like the rerecord of Eric Clapton's "Layla". Not bad!!
> >
> >Jack
>
> It's not lying. It's another way of making music. Do you object to a
> painter who paints the red as well as the blue? He should get another
> painter to do the red, surely. Any painting is a series of overlays
> done by one, or a few painter(s) at different times. That doesn't
> invalidate it as a work of art.
>
> Every recording is not a "record of a performance". Some of them are
> carefully crafted constructions. Maybe as such they will only exist in
> recorded format. That's fine. There is no law that says they must be
> performable live. Some are, of course - Brian May says that Bohemian
> Rhapsody was one of Queen's easier pieces to perform live. For you, of
> course, it isn't even music.
>
> You appear to have a very narrow view of what constitutes music. One
> must pity you and such limitations.

You ask about colors of paintings - no big deal. But if you had a Picasso painting, and later found others were instrumental in composing and finalizing it, would you still respect Picasso? No different with music. Sure, I still like the music, but just disappointed how it was created. I assume you are in favor of overdubbing. Some are, some aren't. Like, Tom Dowd (deceased), who I respect, preferred recording "live", unlike others who didn't care, like Al Kooper, allowed overdubbing.

Jack

>
> d
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

JackA

November 19th 15, 04:00 PM

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 10:49:34 PM UTC-5, Nil wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2015, (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
> > I'm not sure Mr. Agnew even knows what overdubbing is. It's clear
> > he doesn't have any understanding of leakage or cancellation and
> > is reluctant to attempts to explain it to him.
>
> He clearly has absolutely no idea how music is recorded.

Absolutely correct!! But, unlike The Beatles, even this 1958 live Lonnie Donegan (UK) recording surfaced in Stereo!!...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/doesyouchewingum.mp3

Jack

Every
> single one of his post comes from a position of utter and purposeful
> misunderstanding of how and why it's done. To try to correct the
> misconceptions would be a fulltime job... except that he obviously
> doesn't want to know the truth. He'd rather cling to his absurd
> fantasies.
>
> > I think he just knows that he'll get a reaction by saying a
> > particular thing so he does; his only goal is to get a reaction
> > and he doesn't actually have anything to say himself. --scott
>
> Bingo.

Rick Ruskin

November 19th 15, 05:13 PM

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 07:09:57 -0800 (PST), JackA
> wrote:
..
>
>You ask about colors of paintings - no big deal. But if you had a Picasso painting, and later found others were instrumental in composing and finalizing it, would you still respect Picasso? No different with music. Sure, I still like the music, but just disappointed how it was created. I assume you are in favor of overdubbing. Some are, some aren't. Like, Tom Dowd (deceased), who I respect, preferred recording "live", unlike others who didn't care, like Al Kooper, allowed overdubbing.
>
>Jack
>
>>
>> d
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

If you are so disappointed in how music is being made by others,
create some of your own.

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

JackA

November 19th 15, 06:13 PM

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 12:13:53 PM UTC-5, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 07:09:57 -0800 (PST), JackA
> > wrote:
> .
> >
> >You ask about colors of paintings - no big deal. But if you had a Picasso painting, and later found others were instrumental in composing and finalizing it, would you still respect Picasso? No different with music. Sure, I still like the music, but just disappointed how it was created. I assume you are in favor of overdubbing. Some are, some aren't. Like, Tom Dowd (deceased), who I respect, preferred recording "live", unlike others who didn't care, like Al Kooper, allowed overdubbing.
> >
> >Jack
> >
> >>
> >> d
> >>
> >> ---
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> If you are so disappointed in how music is being made by others,
> create some of your own.

Really?

I mean, listen to The Yardbirds, with all their overdubbing rendered them only in monophonic!! Not sure who the band members were, but not decent musicians, that's obvious!!

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

Mike Rivers[_2_]

November 19th 15, 06:24 PM

On 11/19/2015 12:26 PM, Neil wrote:

> There are many types of musical constructions, and they aren't new. Back
> in the mid 1950s, electronic music soundtracks and other recordings were
> commonplace, created using a technique from the '30s called "musique
> concrete", which involved razor blades and recordings of discrete sound
> events.

> There was little hope of (and even less interest in) performing these
> pieces live.

Actually, there were live performances, often teamed with dance, or as
part of a multimedia project. There needs to be something more
interesting to see than someone pressing the Play button on a tape deck,
but just as there's canned music today being used in live performance,
tape-based musical compositions were also incorporated in performance.

> Those in the music industry have long (if not always) made money by
> having their music performed by people who had no involvement in the
> recordings.

This is true for some commercial songwriters, but musicians still make
most of their money from live performance, and the opportunity that live
performance offers to sell CDs, T-shirts, lunch boxes, key chains, song
books, etc.

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

Rick Ruskin

November 19th 15, 06:24 PM

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:13:23 -0800 (PST), JackA
> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 12:13:53 PM UTC-5, Rick Ruskin wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 07:09:57 -0800 (PST), JackA
>> > wrote:
>> .
>> >
>> >You ask about colors of paintings - no big deal. But if you had a Picasso painting, and later found others were instrumental in composing and finalizing it, would you still respect Picasso? No different with music. Sure, I still like the music, but just disappointed how it was created. I assume you are in favor of overdubbing. Some are, some aren't. Like, Tom Dowd (deceased), who I respect, preferred recording "live", unlike others who didn't care, like Al Kooper, allowed overdubbing.
>> >
>> >Jack
>> >
>> >>
>> >> d
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> If you are so disappointed in how music is being made by others,
>> create some of your own.
>
>Really?
>
>I mean, listen to The Yardbirds, with all their overdubbing rendered them only in monophonic!! Not sure who the band members were, but not decent musicians, that's obvious!!
>
>Jack :)
>>
>>
>> Rick Ruskin
>> Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
>> http://liondogmusic.com

The only thing that is obvious is that you are a talentless wannabe.
You bitch about what everyone is doing wrong and don't have a single
thing of your own shwoing how t do it "right." Classic bull****
artist behavior.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

JackA

November 19th 15, 06:38 PM

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 1:32:02 PM UTC-5, david gourley wrote:
> Rick Ruskin >
> said...news:js4s4b181ph0ke0diip218l7er9trt9t1e@4ax .com:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:13:23 -0800 (PST), JackA
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 12:13:53 PM UTC-5, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 07:09:57 -0800 (PST), JackA
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> .
> >>> >
> >>> >You ask about colors of paintings - no big deal. But if you had a
> Picasso painting, and later found others were instrumental in composing and
> finalizing it, would you still respect Picasso? No different with music.
> Sure, I still like the music, but just disappointed how it was created. I
> assume you are in favor of overdubbing. Some are, some aren't. Like, Tom
> Dowd (deceased), who I respect, preferred recording "live", unlike others
> who didn't care, like Al Kooper, allowed overdubbing.
> >>> >
> >>> >Jack
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> d
> >>> >>
> >>> >> ---
> >>> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >>> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If you are so disappointed in how music is being made by others,
> >>> create some of your own.
> >>
> >>Really?
> >>
> >>I mean, listen to The Yardbirds, with all their overdubbing rendered them
> only in monophonic!! Not sure who the band members were, but not decent
> musicians, that's obvious!!
> >>
> >>Jack :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Rick Ruskin
> >>> Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
> >>> http://liondogmusic.com
> >
> >
> > The only thing that is obvious is that you are a talentless wannabe.
> > You bitch about what everyone is doing wrong and don't have a single
> > thing of your own shwoing how t do it "right." Classic bull****
> > artist behavior.
> > Rick Ruskin
> > Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
> > http://liondogmusic.com
> >
>
> And when you either question or offer a suggestion to the troll, he zigzags
> his answer to something else. He's got nothing, not even wannabe. It
> requires no effort on his part, anyway.

Between you and Rick, you'd both win a Grammy. Not for best engineered sound, but best noise making!!

Jack
>
> david

John Williamson

November 19th 15, 07:21 PM

On 19/11/2015 18:38, JackA wrote:
> Between you and Rick, you'd both win a Grammy. Not for best engineered sound, but best noise making!!
>
And every time you post some of your remixed rubbish here, you win the
outright prize for worst sound of the month.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson

November 19th 15, 08:05 PM

On 19/11/2015 18:13, JackA wrote:
> On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 12:13:53 PM UTC-5, Rick Ruskin wrote:
>> If you are so disappointed in how music is being made by others,
>> create some of your own.
>
> Really?
>
> I mean, listen to The Yardbirds, with all their overdubbing rendered them only in monophonic!! Not sure who the band members were, but not decent musicians, that's obvious!!
>
For your information, the lead guitarist on a lot of their big hits was
Jeff Beck, who is generally considered to be one of the best guitarists
and music arrangers of all time.

Eric Clapton also appeared on a couple of their early singles, which
didn't do as well as their later stuff.

Then there was Jimmy Page, who went on to found Led Zeppelin. And so on...

So, yeah, not "decent" musicians. Bloomin' brilliant ones, maybe, but
not "decent".

You might like to listen to some of their new stuff, with half the early
line up still playing, and it's recorded in glorious stereo.

A poor recording, but they are live...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMQo6ajwPbU

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

JackA

November 19th 15, 08:09 PM

John Williamson

November 19th 15, 08:10 PM

On 19/11/2015 20:05, John Williamson wrote:
> On 19/11/2015 18:13, JackA wrote:

>> I mean, listen to The Yardbirds, with all their overdubbing rendered
>> them only in monophonic!! Not sure who the band members were, but not
>> decent musicians, that's obvious!!

> You might like to listen to some of their new stuff, with half the early
> line up still playing, and it's recorded in glorious stereo.
>
> A poor recording, but they are live...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMQo6ajwPbU
>
There's a better recording here:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn7ZmI_wRv8

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Neil[_9_]

November 19th 15, 08:20 PM

On 11/19/2015 1:24 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 11/19/2015 12:26 PM, Neil wrote:
>
>> There are many types of musical constructions, and they aren't new. Back
>> in the mid 1950s, electronic music soundtracks and other recordings were
>> commonplace, created using a technique from the '30s called "musique
>> concrete", which involved razor blades and recordings of discrete sound
>> events.
>
>> There was little hope of (and even less interest in) performing these
>> pieces live.
>
> Actually, there were live performances, often teamed with dance, or as
> part of a multimedia project. There needs to be something more
> interesting to see than someone pressing the Play button on a tape deck,
> but just as there's canned music today being used in live performance,
> tape-based musical compositions were also incorporated in performance.
>
True, if performance or live presentation was the goal, which isn't
always the case.

>> Those in the music industry have long (if not always) made money by
>> having their music performed by people who had no involvement in the
>> recordings.
>
> This is true for some commercial songwriters, but musicians still make
> most of their money from live performance, and the opportunity that live
> performance offers to sell CDs, T-shirts, lunch boxes, key chains, song
> books, etc.
>
Well sure, because by (union) definition, most musicians are performers.
Regressing again, Les Paul and Mary Ford did a lot of music on record
that was quite different from their live performances, by necessity. In
other words, none of this is new.

DAWs have made it easier for composers to get their ideas realized, and
though their work is not necessarily connected to performances or even a
viable income, it's still music!

--
Best regards,

Neil

geoff

November 19th 15, 08:35 PM

On 20/11/2015 2:38 a.m., Frank Stearns wrote:
> Bottom line: if the players aren't happy as the take going down, it's
> a lot harder to get a good performance. It might be "ideal" from an
> engineering point of view but then you struggle and stuggle with the
> mix -- not because the sonics are bad, but because you don't have any
> "musical soul" upon which to build that mix. Frank Mobile Audio

You can always give them them fundamentalist alternative of a only
stereo pair of mics and they just play. Sometimes that works for the
recording, and sometimes that convinces them that the alternative
method/s weren't so bad after all !

geoff

Mike Rivers[_2_]

November 19th 15, 09:03 PM

On 11/19/2015 3:20 PM, Neil wrote:
> Well sure, because by (union) definition, most musicians are performers.
> Regressing again, Les Paul and Mary Ford did a lot of music on record
> that was quite different from their live performances, by necessity. In
> other words, none of this is new.

Did you ever see Les Paul perform? The Les Paulverizer (a multitrack
player that he could control from a switchbox on his guitar) was an
essential part of his show. He could play live anything that he
recorded, but for performance, he obviously needed prepared tracks for
things that were processed in ways that he couldn't do live. Mary's
sister or cousin would sing her doubled parts hidden behind a curtain
when they did live shows. Les was not only a clever inventor, but a
first class showman and darn good guitarist. His live shows were better
than his records.

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

Neil[_9_]

November 19th 15, 09:38 PM

On 11/19/2015 4:03 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 11/19/2015 3:20 PM, Neil wrote:
>> Well sure, because by (union) definition, most musicians are performers.
>> Regressing again, Les Paul and Mary Ford did a lot of music on record
>> that was quite different from their live performances, by necessity. In
>> other words, none of this is new.
>
> Did you ever see Les Paul perform?
>
Yes, more than once. Most recently about a year before he passed.

> The Les Paulverizer (a multitrack
> player that he could control from a switchbox on his guitar) was an
> essential part of his show. He could play live anything that he
> recorded, but for performance, he obviously needed prepared tracks for
> things that were processed in ways that he couldn't do live. Mary's
> sister or cousin would sing her doubled parts hidden behind a curtain
> when they did live shows. Les was not only a clever inventor, but a
> first class showman and darn good guitarist. His live shows were better
> than his records.
>
No doubt, and I do not mean to suggest that his live shows were not fun;
they were a good time. But, they were not the same as his recordings.
Personally, I think that's a good thing.

--
Best regards,

Neil

JackA

November 19th 15, 10:12 PM

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 3:10:23 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 19/11/2015 20:05, John Williamson wrote:
> > On 19/11/2015 18:13, JackA wrote:
>
> >> I mean, listen to The Yardbirds, with all their overdubbing rendered
> >> them only in monophonic!! Not sure who the band members were, but not
> >> decent musicians, that's obvious!!
>
> > You might like to listen to some of their new stuff, with half the early
> > line up still playing, and it's recorded in glorious stereo.
> >
> > A poor recording, but they are live...
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMQo6ajwPbU
> >
> There's a better recording here:-
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn7ZmI_wRv8

Here's the "boys" as George Martin would call them, trying their best to replicate what studio musicians recorded for them...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU5zqidlxMQ

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

Scott Dorsey

November 19th 15, 11:04 PM

geoff > wrote:
>On 20/11/2015 2:38 a.m., Frank Stearns wrote:
>> Bottom line: if the players aren't happy as the take going down, it's
>> a lot harder to get a good performance. It might be "ideal" from an
>> engineering point of view but then you struggle and stuggle with the
>> mix -- not because the sonics are bad, but because you don't have any
>> "musical soul" upon which to build that mix. Frank Mobile Audio
>
>You can always give them them fundamentalist alternative of a only
>stereo pair of mics and they just play. Sometimes that works for the
>recording, and sometimes that convinces them that the alternative
>method/s weren't so bad after all !

For a bluegrass band, I have sometimes done a hybrid arrangement.
Single mike pair with the performers taking a few steps forward for
solos and stepping back for the rest, making two tracks on the tape.
Then a third and maybe fourth track with a vocal overdub.

In a good room this can work well without the vocals disappearing
and without the instruments getting mushy from leakage into the
vocal mike, but still the vocals front and center and more prominent
than they'd be if they were just recorded with the main pair.

Sometimes performers find it a lot easier to play when they aren't
singing, but sometimes performers find it harder too. Finding out
which is the case for your performers is the key to the whole thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

JackA

November 20th 15, 12:35 AM

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 8:17:55 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Don Pearce > wrote:
> >
> >No overdubbing? Bye bye Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd. They are
> >clearly rubbish. There is no problem with overdubbing, it keeps the
> >artistic input consistent and saves splitting up the cash too many
> >ways - important for a band. As for live performances - do something
> >different, but equally good. The fans haven't turned up to hear the
> >record playing anyway (OK, that's exactly what they have turned up for
> >with the more youthful of today's cohort).
>
> Well, the thing is that when you have a loud band with a backline, there
> is no way to get clean vocals without overdubbing. Because the rock band
> can only be balanced with electronic aid, you're limited in your ability
> to get a clean vocal without a lot of leakage.
>
> There are tricks you can use to get a little more isolation, but forget
> having anyone playing drums and singing at the same time. It's not going
> to work out.
>
> I'm not sure Mr. Agnew even knows what overdubbing is. It's clear he
> doesn't have any understanding of leakage or cancellation and is reluctant
> to attempts to explain it to him. I think he just knows that he'll get
> a reaction by saying a particular thing so he does; his only goal is to
> get a reaction and he doesn't actually have anything to say himself.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Dear Mr. Pearce,

I'm always on the hunt for information about past recordings and problems they had with "mastering" early CDs. If people offer valid information, I say "thank you" and willing to shake hands. Well, Scott wants me to believe he knows what went on with early CDs, blaming sound problems on A/D converters. Cute. It wasn't until I found (on the internet) someone who KNEW those Sony PCM machines (both video and audio), knew what Sony suggested (dropping bits), knew "hot" sound and conservative. You know, a real person who had the responsibility to master CDs!

I mean, heck, even Steve Hoffman knows nothing about them. Steve is a lot like Scott, wants you to believe he knows it all. Not me, I need facts, not the fantasies and guesses from people's minds.

Jack

Scott Dorsey

November 20th 15, 02:45 PM

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>
>And, sometimes, a little leakage can add something to the overall sound. IIRC, this
>was Rudy Van Gelder's "secret sauce" and he guarded that secret jealously.

A lot of that wasn't just leakage, it was also physical interaction between
instruments being played live in the same room. For instance, playing the
horn into the piano to thicken it with the sympathetic vibrations of the piano
strings. Doing this, of course, you get one track with both horn and piano
on the tape so you need to get the balances right the first time.

Drum kits are the same way... everything sounds different when it's being
played in front of a drum kit because of the drum resonances.

This is another part of what makes an ensemble much better than the sum of
the individual parts.

>Bottom line: if the players aren't happy as the take going down, it's a lot harder
>to get a good performance. It might be "ideal" from an engineering point of view but
>then you struggle and stuggle with the mix -- not because the sonics are bad, but
>because you don't have any "musical soul" upon which to build that mix.

I fear there is probably a "soul" plugin available now.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

JackA

November 21st 15, 12:52 AM

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:21:40 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 19/11/2015 18:38, JackA wrote:
> > Between you and Rick, you'd both win a Grammy. Not for best engineered sound, but best noise making!!
> >
> And every time you post some of your remixed rubbish here, you win the
> outright prize for worst sound of the month.

In the REAL world, this is the kind of applause I receive (site visitor)...

"Last, the best version of the always crappy sounding "In The Year 2525" that I've ever heard. This is from the German import "Zager & Evans - In The Year 2525" on Oxford ZES -0174. Maybe you can work some of your magic on this and make it a bit more listenable!
Love your website - some great stuff you've put together"!

What did he say, John, work my [audio] magic?

Jack

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

Rick Ruskin

November 21st 15, 02:03 AM

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:52:44 -0800 (PST), JackA
> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:21:40 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 19/11/2015 18:38, JackA wrote:
>> > Between you and Rick, you'd both win a Grammy. Not for best engineered sound, but best noise making!!
>> >
>> And every time you post some of your remixed rubbish here, you win the
>> outright prize for worst sound of the month.
>
>
>In the REAL world, this is the kind of applause I receive (site visitor)...
>
>"Last, the best version of the always crappy sounding "In The Year 2525" that I've ever heard. This is from the German import "Zager & Evans - In The Year 2525" on Oxford ZES -0174. Maybe you can work some of your magic on this and make it a bit more listenable!
>Love your website - some great stuff you've put together"!
>
>What did he say, John, work my [audio] magic?
>
>Jack
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Tciao for Now!
>>
>> John.

It looks like you have a great career of polishing turds ahead of you.

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

JackA

November 21st 15, 02:38 AM

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 9:03:21 PM UTC-5, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:52:44 -0800 (PST), JackA
> > wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:21:40 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 19/11/2015 18:38, JackA wrote:
> >> > Between you and Rick, you'd both win a Grammy. Not for best engineered sound, but best noise making!!
> >> >
> >> And every time you post some of your remixed rubbish here, you win the
> >> outright prize for worst sound of the month.
> >
> >
> >In the REAL world, this is the kind of applause I receive (site visitor)....
> >
> >"Last, the best version of the always crappy sounding "In The Year 2525" that I've ever heard. This is from the German import "Zager & Evans - In The Year 2525" on Oxford ZES -0174. Maybe you can work some of your magic on this and make it a bit more listenable!
> >Love your website - some great stuff you've put together"!
> >
> >What did he say, John, work my [audio] magic?
> >
> >Jack
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tciao for Now!
> >>
> >> John.
>
> It looks like you have a great career of polishing turds ahead of you.

Whatever. But I am pleasing others. Don't you wish you could? :-)

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

John Williamson

November 21st 15, 07:11 AM

On 21/11/2015 02:38, JackA wrote:
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 9:03:21 PM UTC-5, Rick Ruskin wrote:
>> It looks like you have a great career of polishing turds ahead of you.
>
> Whatever. But I am pleasing others. Don't you wish you could? :-)
>
Most of us in here do exactly that, to the extent that they are willing
to pay us for what we do.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

JackA

November 23rd 15, 12:22 AM

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 2:11:47 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 21/11/2015 02:38, JackA wrote:
> > On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 9:03:21 PM UTC-5, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> >> It looks like you have a great career of polishing turds ahead of you.
> >
> > Whatever. But I am pleasing others. Don't you wish you could? :-)
> >
> Most of us in here do exactly that, to the extent that they are willing
> to pay us for what we do.

I know, I know, everyone gave you their two cents! :)

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

mcp6453[_2_]

November 25th 15, 01:59 PM

On 11/14/2015 4:27 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 13-11-2015 15:21, mcp6453 wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/2015 3:14 AM, gray_wolf wrote:
>
>>> Don't know what to say to the OP except check your settings
>>> like cache and temp file location, do a fresh install and
>>> make sure something else is not stealing your CPU and HDD
>>> resources. Trust me, it happens.
>
> It is probably still in the manual somewhere, at least two spindles recommended. I stand by my opinion that this is the
> issue here even if if the disk is SSD. Note all I know about SSD is that I bought a 2.5" disk before moving house a
> couple of years ago and that IBAS says there is no such thing as data-recovery from an SSD disk. Eventually however they
> will probably be cheaper because of the loss of ability to manufacture anything mechanical. My asumption is that the
> controller inside the disk does not like simultanous read and write.
>
>> Thanks for doing that. I monitor the resources in use by the computer all the time. That's not the problem. The settings
>> are the same as they are for an XP installation (on a Pentium 4) that works perfectly. Either W7 doesn't like 1.5, or
>> 1.5 doesn't like the SSD. I'm going to install it on a W7 computer with a mechanical hard drive to see if there is any
>> difference. I'm such a fan of 1.5 (like Rick) that I'm prepared to get a new computer and leave in on XP, if that's what
>> it takes. Just don't leave an XP computer exposed on the Internet.
>
> You may find that XP is not installable on a new box. Anyway, one disk for audio storage, one for OS and temp-location 1
> and another for temp-location 2 works best. You with then keep it reading from one drive and writing to another all the
> time for maximum speed.

I've tried everything I've read here, but no joy. Maybe someone will have an Ah Ha moment and find the problem, but it
has me stumped. For some reason, Audition 1.5 on Windows 7 chokes when opening an MP3 file, but it zooms with a WAV file.

david gourley[_2_]

November 25th 15, 04:01 PM

mcp6453 > said...news:XLqdnUHOOc5dI8jLnZ2dnUU7-
:

> On 11/14/2015 4:27 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
>> On 13-11-2015 15:21, mcp6453 wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/12/2015 3:14 AM, gray_wolf wrote:
>>
>>>> Don't know what to say to the OP except check your settings
>>>> like cache and temp file location, do a fresh install and
>>>> make sure something else is not stealing your CPU and HDD
>>>> resources. Trust me, it happens.
>>
>> It is probably still in the manual somewhere, at least two spindles
recommended. I stand by my opinion that this is the
>> issue here even if if the disk is SSD. Note all I know about SSD is that
I bought a 2.5" disk before moving house a
>> couple of years ago and that IBAS says there is no such thing as data-
recovery from an SSD disk. Eventually however they
>> will probably be cheaper because of the loss of ability to manufacture
anything mechanical. My asumption is that the
>> controller inside the disk does not like simultanous read and write.
>>
>>> Thanks for doing that. I monitor the resources in use by the computer
all the time. That's not the problem. The settings
>>> are the same as they are for an XP installation (on a Pentium 4) that
works perfectly. Either W7 doesn't like 1.5, or
>>> 1.5 doesn't like the SSD. I'm going to install it on a W7 computer with
a mechanical hard drive to see if there is any
>>> difference. I'm such a fan of 1.5 (like Rick) that I'm prepared to get
a new computer and leave in on XP, if that's what
>>> it takes. Just don't leave an XP computer exposed on the Internet.
>>
>> You may find that XP is not installable on a new box. Anyway, one disk
for audio storage, one for OS and temp-location 1
>> and another for temp-location 2 works best. You with then keep it
reading from one drive and writing to another all the
>> time for maximum speed.
>
> I've tried everything I've read here, but no joy. Maybe someone will have
an Ah Ha moment and find the problem, but it
> has me stumped. For some reason, Audition 1.5 on Windows 7 chokes when
opening an MP3 file, but it zooms with a WAV file.
>
>

If I were using it, I'd try replacing the MP3 filter that's built-in with a
Lame equivalent. There's a Lame Cool Edit/Audition filter available that
you can use with the Lame encoder dll (both go into the Audition folder),
and you just disable(i.e., rename) the "fhtpro.flt" that's installed by
Audition.

Maybe that will help solve your problem.

david

david gourley[_2_]

November 25th 15, 07:57 PM

Nil > said...news:XnsA55D877FD3524nilch1
@wheedledeedle.moc:

> On 25 Nov 2015, david gourley > wrote
> in rec.audio.pro:
>
>> If I were using it, I'd try replacing the MP3 filter that's
>> built-in with a Lame equivalent. There's a Lame Cool
>> Edit/Audition filter available that you can use with the Lame
>> encoder dll (both go into the Audition folder), and you just
>> disable(i.e., rename) the "fhtpro.flt" that's installed by
>> Audition.
>
> Isn't that just for saving/encoding? I always assumed that old LAME
> filter flt didn't affect decoding/opening... no? Guess it would be
> worth a shot regardless.
>
> Here's a link to CoolLAME. It includes an old version of the LAME dll,
> but you can replace that with a more recent version.
>
> http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-libraries.php
>

Possibly, but I figured worth a try if nothing else has worked.

Thanks for the filter link, I got distracted and forgot to put it up. The
Lame bundle is here: http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php

david

mcp6453[_2_]

November 26th 15, 01:52 AM

On 11/25/2015 2:57 PM, david gourley wrote:
> Nil > said...news:XnsA55D877FD3524nilch1
> @wheedledeedle.moc:
>
>> On 25 Nov 2015, david gourley > wrote
>> in rec.audio.pro:
>>
>>> If I were using it, I'd try replacing the MP3 filter that's
>>> built-in with a Lame equivalent. There's a Lame Cool
>>> Edit/Audition filter available that you can use with the Lame
>>> encoder dll (both go into the Audition folder), and you just
>>> disable(i.e., rename) the "fhtpro.flt" that's installed by
>>> Audition.
>>
>> Isn't that just for saving/encoding? I always assumed that old LAME
>> filter flt didn't affect decoding/opening... no? Guess it would be
>> worth a shot regardless.
>>
>> Here's a link to CoolLAME. It includes an old version of the LAME dll,
>> but you can replace that with a more recent version.
>>
>> http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-libraries.php
>>
>
> Possibly, but I figured worth a try if nothing else has worked.
>
> Thanks for the filter link, I got distracted and forgot to put it up. The
> Lame bundle is here: http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php

I'll definitely give it a try to see if it makes a difference, but the Fraunhofer codec sounds much better than the LAME
codec to my ears.

david gourley[_2_]

November 26th 15, 02:37 AM

mcp6453 > said...news:IYCdnaZJ4MBW-MvLnZ2dnUU7-
:

> On 11/25/2015 2:57 PM, david gourley wrote:
>> Nil > said...news:XnsA55D877FD3524nilch1
>> @wheedledeedle.moc:
>>
>>> On 25 Nov 2015, david gourley > wrote
>>> in rec.audio.pro:
>>>
>>>> If I were using it, I'd try replacing the MP3 filter that's
>>>> built-in with a Lame equivalent. There's a Lame Cool
>>>> Edit/Audition filter available that you can use with the Lame
>>>> encoder dll (both go into the Audition folder), and you just
>>>> disable(i.e., rename) the "fhtpro.flt" that's installed by
>>>> Audition.
>>>
>>> Isn't that just for saving/encoding? I always assumed that old LAME
>>> filter flt didn't affect decoding/opening... no? Guess it would be
>>> worth a shot regardless.
>>>
>>> Here's a link to CoolLAME. It includes an old version of the LAME dll,
>>> but you can replace that with a more recent version.
>>>
>>> http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-libraries.php
>>>
>>
>> Possibly, but I figured worth a try if nothing else has worked.
>>
>> Thanks for the filter link, I got distracted and forgot to put it up.
The
>> Lame bundle is here: http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php
>
> I'll definitely give it a try to see if it makes a difference, but the
Fraunhofer codec sounds much better than the LAME
> codec to my ears.
>
>
>

No doubt, but I'm sure it will be an interesting test nonetheless. There
are probably worse compromises in life, all things considered.

david