Computer Audio +

[JackA]

I posted a before and after digitally enhanced song. On my old Acer (XP) laptop, a significant change between the two! However, on my Windows RT tablet, the difference is not so noticeable! BUT, I noticed when the XBox music thing plays music, I sometimes hear a change in volume, loud to softer. I have to assume some Automatic Gain control is in action!! That renders an RT tablet worthless for doing audio work.

Also, on the Dell (Win 7 Pro) computer at work, I liked my older Dell, audio was nice. But this newer one sounded distorted, I searched, and found a Dell Audio control panel with all kinds of gimmicks. I can't turn it off entirely, but I shut a lot off. I feel, it, too, is worthless for doing audio work!


OT:
---

Anyway, an example, but this blows my mind. A Top 10 US hit, but listen to the audio; so crude (why I ask here about HQ)....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raJWuz7qQVc

But then, from Wiki'....
"As the song was recorded at Pitt Sound Studio, Greenville, North Carolina, a budget studio, the master tape is missing. A needle-drop {vinyl record mastering} of The North State single was used by ABC to create the nationally released hit single. That "master" is now the property of MCA Records and is leased to other record labels".

I'm beginning to believe those people on YouTube didn't actually record the song; I watch how lifeless the drummer is. Since it was issued on an obscure label [North State Records], it makes me believe it was a demo recording; why it sounded crude, but why rerecord it? Maybe a metal stamping master was made from an existing vinyl 45! You would THINK a group member would remember what went on, but when they weren't there at the recording, how could they!?

Jack

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 12/7/2015 6:07 PM, JackA wrote:

> I'm beginning to believe those people on YouTube didn't actually record the song; I watch how lifeless the drummer is. Since it was issued on an obscure label [North State Records], it makes me believe it was a demo recording; why it sounded crude, but why rerecord it? Maybe a metal stamping master was made from an existing vinyl 45! You would THINK a group member would remember what went on, but when they weren't there at the recording, how could they!?

You would be wrong. I know the band members, and the lead singer is a friend of mine. Quit making up stuff.

[John Williamson]

On 07/12/2015 23:07, JackA wrote:

> Anyway, an example, but this blows my mind. A Top 10 US hit, but listen to the audio; so crude (why I ask here about HQ)....
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raJWuz7qQVc
>
You're actually using audio originally recorded on a 1960s or 19780s
NTSC recorder in mono, probably going via a couple of generations of
analogue loss, then converted to digital, squished by someone's home
recorder, and then squished even more badly by Youtube's processing as a
guide as to how good and genuine the original recording is?

<Shakes head in disbelief>


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 9:17:39 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 07/12/2015 23:07, JackA wrote:
>
> > Anyway, an example, but this blows my mind. A Top 10 US hit, but listen to the audio; so crude (why I ask here about HQ)....
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raJWuz7qQVc
> >
> You're actually using audio originally recorded on a 1960s or 19780s
> NTSC recorder in mono, probably going via a couple of generations of
> analogue loss, then converted to digital, squished by someone's home
> recorder, and then squished even more badly by Youtube's processing as a
> guide as to how good and genuine the original recording is?

Yeah, the foul audio, this is after everyone tells me The Group must approve. Right. But, then again, you can believe Brian Wilson. Remember how he told the story of the Wrecking Crew decades ago. Another fabricated mess of lies.

And for YOUR information, when North State Records was approached by ABC Records, all the sudden the session tape disappears and ABC Records accepted a needle drop (vinyl mastering).

Since mcp6453 tells me he knows the band members, then bring 'em here. But, I know the fear questioning.

Jack


>
> <Shakes head in disbelief>
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[John Williamson]

On 09/12/2015 15:18, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 9:17:39 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
>> You're actually using audio originally recorded on a 1960s or 19780s
>> NTSC recorder in mono, probably going via a couple of generations of
>> analogue loss, then converted to digital, squished by someone's home
>> recorder, and then squished even more badly by Youtube's processing as a
>> guide as to how good and genuine the original recording is?
>
> Yeah, the foul audio, this is after everyone tells me The Group must approve. Right. But, then again, you can believe Brian Wilson. Remember how he told the story of the Wrecking Crew decades ago. Another fabricated mess of lies.
>
> And for YOUR information, when North State Records was approached by ABC Records, all the sudden the session tape disappears and ABC Records accepted a needle drop (vinyl mastering).
>
I have read the Wikilies article, yes. However, in those days, tape was
expensive, and master tapes in smaller studios often got re-used if
there was no great interest after the initial pressing sold out, if it
did. Heck, even the BBC have wiped and re-used thousands of programme
masters from then and later due to cost pressures.

> Since mcp6453 tells me he knows the band members, then bring 'em here. But, I know the fear questioning.

The other versions I've found sound a lot better than your version. This
one, for example:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNxVRJjP3Lw

Or the mp3 that can be downloaded as part of an album from Amazon.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 10:54:56 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 09/12/2015 15:18, JackA wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 9:17:39 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> >> You're actually using audio originally recorded on a 1960s or 19780s
> >> NTSC recorder in mono, probably going via a couple of generations of
> >> analogue loss, then converted to digital, squished by someone's home
> >> recorder, and then squished even more badly by Youtube's processing as a
> >> guide as to how good and genuine the original recording is?
> >
> > Yeah, the foul audio, this is after everyone tells me The Group must approve. Right. But, then again, you can believe Brian Wilson. Remember how he told the story of the Wrecking Crew decades ago. Another fabricated mess of lies.
> >
> > And for YOUR information, when North State Records was approached by ABC Records, all the sudden the session tape disappears and ABC Records accepted a needle drop (vinyl mastering).
> >
> I have read the Wikilies article, yes. However, in those days, tape was
> expensive, and master tapes in smaller studios often got re-used if
> there was no great interest after the initial pressing sold out, if it
> did. Heck, even the BBC have wiped and re-used thousands of programme
> masters from then and later due to cost pressures.
>
> > Since mcp6453 tells me he knows the band members, then bring 'em here. But, I know the fear questioning.
>
> The other versions I've found sound a lot better than your version. This
> one, for example:-
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNxVRJjP3Lw
>
> Or the mp3 that can be downloaded as part of an album from Amazon.
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

Here's the way I see things. North State was approached by ABC Records, they wanted to license the song and make millions off it. However, once the Producer, John I. Whitfield, got wind of the deal, he stole the session tapes, because HE felt he should be highly $$$$ compensated. Producers are the pits.

Spare me of your expensive magnetic tape dreams.

Jack
John I. Whitfield

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 12/9/2015 10:54 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 09/12/2015 15:18, JackA wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 9:17:39 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
>>> You're actually using audio originally recorded on a 1960s or 19780s
>>> NTSC recorder in mono, probably going via a couple of generations of
>>> analogue loss, then converted to digital, squished by someone's home
>>> recorder, and then squished even more badly by Youtube's processing as a
>>> guide as to how good and genuine the original recording is?
>>
>> Yeah, the foul audio, this is after everyone tells me The Group must approve. Right. But, then again, you can believe
>> Brian Wilson. Remember how he told the story of the Wrecking Crew decades ago. Another fabricated mess of lies.
>>
>> And for YOUR information, when North State Records was approached by ABC Records, all the sudden the session tape
>> disappears and ABC Records accepted a needle drop (vinyl mastering).
>>
> I have read the Wikilies article, yes. However, in those days, tape was expensive, and master tapes in smaller studios
> often got re-used if there was no great interest after the initial pressing sold out, if it did. Heck, even the BBC have
> wiped and re-used thousands of programme masters from then and later due to cost pressures.
>
>> Since mcp6453 tells me he knows the band members, then bring 'em here. But, I know the fear questioning.
>
> The other versions I've found sound a lot better than your version. This one, for example:-
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNxVRJjP3Lw
>
> Or the mp3 that can be downloaded as part of an album from Amazon.

There is a two-track reference with vocals on one side, but for some unknown reason, it was dubbed at 3-3/4". The best
version of the song is on a Dick Clark compilation CD.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 3:32:33 PM UTC-5, mcp6453 wrote:
> On 12/9/2015 10:54 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> > On 09/12/2015 15:18, JackA wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 9:17:39 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> >>> You're actually using audio originally recorded on a 1960s or 19780s
> >>> NTSC recorder in mono, probably going via a couple of generations of
> >>> analogue loss, then converted to digital, squished by someone's home
> >>> recorder, and then squished even more badly by Youtube's processing as a
> >>> guide as to how good and genuine the original recording is?
> >>
> >> Yeah, the foul audio, this is after everyone tells me The Group must approve. Right. But, then again, you can believe
> >> Brian Wilson. Remember how he told the story of the Wrecking Crew decades ago. Another fabricated mess of lies.
> >>
> >> And for YOUR information, when North State Records was approached by ABC Records, all the sudden the session tape
> >> disappears and ABC Records accepted a needle drop (vinyl mastering).
> >>
> > I have read the Wikilies article, yes. However, in those days, tape was expensive, and master tapes in smaller studios
> > often got re-used if there was no great interest after the initial pressing sold out, if it did. Heck, even the BBC have
> > wiped and re-used thousands of programme masters from then and later due to cost pressures.
> >
> >> Since mcp6453 tells me he knows the band members, then bring 'em here. But, I know the fear questioning.
> >
> > The other versions I've found sound a lot better than your version. This one, for example:-
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNxVRJjP3Lw
> >
> > Or the mp3 that can be downloaded as part of an album from Amazon.
>
> There is a two-track reference with vocals on one side, but for some unknown reason, it was dubbed at 3-3/4". The best
> version of the song is on a Dick Clark compilation CD.

Well, this is nice information!

Assume if dubbed @ 3.75 IPS, I'd hear tape noise.

Thanks.

Jack
p.s. Yeah, mono, John!!

[geoff]

On 10/12/2015 10:00 a.m., JackA wrote:
> Assume if dubbed @ 3.75 IPS, I'd hear tape noise. Thanks. Jack p.s.
> Yeah, mono, John!!

Tape noise and other detail (including musical) likely lost in
lossy-encoding. One reason why you really can't judge anything with any
degree of subtly with a typical MP3 (or Youtube encoding).

geoff

[JackA]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 4:33:04 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 10:00 a.m., JackA wrote:
> > Assume if dubbed @ 3.75 IPS, I'd hear tape noise. Thanks. Jack p.s.
> > Yeah, mono, John!!
>
> Tape noise and other detail (including musical) likely lost in
> lossy-encoding. One reason why you really can't judge anything with any
> degree of subtly with a typical MP3 (or Youtube encoding).
>
> geoff

Geoff, please, really. The Orleans sent me a demo of one of their hits. I said it sounded like it was recorded at 3.75 IPS. They confirmed I was correct.

Same with CS&N song on RCA, 3.75", on CD, and you can HEAR it.

MP3s do not add tape noise.

Jack

[geoff]

On 10/12/2015 11:11 a.m., JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 4:33:04 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>> On 10/12/2015 10:00 a.m., JackA wrote:
>>> Assume if dubbed @ 3.75 IPS, I'd hear tape noise. Thanks. Jack p.s.
>>> Yeah, mono, John!!
>> Tape noise and other detail (including musical) likely lost in
>> lossy-encoding. One reason why you really can't judge anything with any
>> degree of subtly with a typical MP3 (or Youtube encoding).
>>
>> geoff
> Geoff, please, really. The Orleans sent me a demo of one of their hits. I said it sounded like it was recorded at 3.75 IPS. They confirmed I was correct.

Whooop-di-doo. Good guess.

>
> Same with CS&N song on RCA, 3.75", on CD, and you can HEAR it.
>
> MP3s do not add tape noise.
>
> Jack


"Apparently the concept of "lost" is lost on you.

If subtle, tape noise can be lost, reduced, or altered with lossy
encoding. If strong it will get through.

If not data-reduced and transferred at CD quality, the tape noise will
be pretty much exactly as per the tape, whatever speed.

geoff

[None]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> <....>

You keep trying to teach dog**** not to smell.

[[email protected]]

N wrote: ""geoff" > wrote in message
...
> <....>

You keep trying to teach dog**** not to smell. "

geoff has done a LOT more for this conversation
than you have for the whole newsgroup.

[david gourley[_2_]]

geoff > said...news:2KudnUt1NJTVJPXLnZ2dnUU7-Q-
:

> On 10/12/2015 11:11 a.m., JackA wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 4:33:04 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2015 10:00 a.m., JackA wrote:
>>>> Assume if dubbed @ 3.75 IPS, I'd hear tape noise. Thanks. Jack p.s.
>>>> Yeah, mono, John!!
>>> Tape noise and other detail (including musical) likely lost in
>>> lossy-encoding. One reason why you really can't judge anything with any
>>> degree of subtly with a typical MP3 (or Youtube encoding).
>>>
>>> geoff
>> Geoff, please, really. The Orleans sent me a demo of one of their hits.
I said it sounded like it was recorded at 3.75 IPS. They confirmed I was
correct.
>
> Whooop-di-doo. Good guess.
>
>>
>> Same with CS&N song on RCA, 3.75", on CD, and you can HEAR it.
>>
>> MP3s do not add tape noise.
>>
>> Jack
>
>
> "Apparently the concept of "lost" is lost on you.
>
> If subtle, tape noise can be lost, reduced, or altered with lossy
> encoding. If strong it will get through.
>
> If not data-reduced and transferred at CD quality, the tape noise will
> be pretty much exactly as per the tape, whatever speed.
>
> geoff

Don't take the hook, Geoff. CSN wasn't even on RCA. The troll doesn't
care what your factual answers are if you haven't guessed by now.

Like mcp6453 said, Agnew's just making up stuff (and I personally know
mcp6453 is for real).

david

[None]

< thekma @ brevis . omnibus . com > wrote in message
...
> N wrote: ""geoff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> <....>
>
> You keep trying to teach dog**** not to smell. "
>
> geoff has done a LOT more for this conversation
> than you have for the whole newsgroup.

Dumb****.

Hehe. Another reason you keep coming back here is because I seem to be
almost the only on one Usenet who responds to you. Mostly, it's
crickets. Autistic crickets, as you know.

Dumb****,

[Nil[_2_]]

On 09 Dec 2015, david gourley > wrote
in rec.audio.pro:

> Don't take the hook, Geoff. CSN wasn't even on RCA. The troll
> doesn't care what your factual answers are if you haven't guessed
> by now.
>
> Like mcp6453 said, Agnew's just making up stuff (and I personally
> know mcp6453 is for real).

I'm glad you recognize it. I think most people here also recognize the
blatant troll tactics. It loads every single post with intentional lies
and half-truths, hoping people will "correct" it and get sucked into an
endless "discussion". The creep knows how to start things up and keep
them going for as long as it's got someone on the hook. It's made a
career out of it, and it's gotten pretty good at it over the years.
I've watched it happen in several newsgroups. It doesn't matter what
the topic is, it's all about manipulation and masturbation.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 8:50:44 PM UTC-5, david gourley wrote:
> geoff > said...news:2KudnUt1NJTVJPXLnZ2dnUU7-Q-
> :
>
> > On 10/12/2015 11:11 a.m., JackA wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 4:33:04 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> >>> On 10/12/2015 10:00 a.m., JackA wrote:
> >>>> Assume if dubbed @ 3.75 IPS, I'd hear tape noise. Thanks. Jack p.s.
> >>>> Yeah, mono, John!!
> >>> Tape noise and other detail (including musical) likely lost in
> >>> lossy-encoding. One reason why you really can't judge anything with any
> >>> degree of subtly with a typical MP3 (or Youtube encoding).
> >>>
> >>> geoff
> >> Geoff, please, really. The Orleans sent me a demo of one of their hits.
> I said it sounded like it was recorded at 3.75 IPS. They confirmed I was
> correct.
> >
> > Whooop-di-doo. Good guess.
> >
> >>
> >> Same with CS&N song on RCA, 3.75", on CD, and you can HEAR it.
> >>
> >> MP3s do not add tape noise.
> >>
> >> Jack
> >
> >
> > "Apparently the concept of "lost" is lost on you.
> >
> > If subtle, tape noise can be lost, reduced, or altered with lossy
> > encoding. If strong it will get through.
> >
> > If not data-reduced and transferred at CD quality, the tape noise will
> > be pretty much exactly as per the tape, whatever speed.
> >
> > geoff
>
> Don't take the hook, Geoff. CSN wasn't even on RCA.
> The troll doesn't
> care what your factual answers are if you haven't guessed by now.
>
> Like mcp6453 said, Agnew's just making up stuff (and I personally know
> mcp6453 is for real).

Yeah, yeah. And John W. "Well, recording tape was expensive in the 60s and they recorded full-track mono..."

Then MCP, "well, it was two tracks with vocals on one side..."

I think you people write just to keep your pudgy fingers active!

Jack
>
> david

[david gourley[_2_]]

Nil > said...news:XnsA56C7CE48094nilch1
@wheedledeedle.moc:

> On 09 Dec 2015, david gourley > wrote
> in rec.audio.pro:
>
>> Don't take the hook, Geoff. CSN wasn't even on RCA. The troll
>> doesn't care what your factual answers are if you haven't guessed
>> by now.
>>
>> Like mcp6453 said, Agnew's just making up stuff (and I personally
>> know mcp6453 is for real).
>
> I'm glad you recognize it. I think most people here also recognize the
> blatant troll tactics. It loads every single post with intentional lies
> and half-truths, hoping people will "correct" it and get sucked into an
> endless "discussion". The creep knows how to start things up and keep
> them going for as long as it's got someone on the hook. It's made a
> career out of it, and it's gotten pretty good at it over the years.
> I've watched it happen in several newsgroups. It doesn't matter what
> the topic is, it's all about manipulation and masturbation.

Yes Nil, agreed and that's why it lives in my killfile.

It's way easier to teach a pig to sing!

david

[JackA]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 6:29:16 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 11:11 a.m., JackA wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 4:33:04 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> >> On 10/12/2015 10:00 a.m., JackA wrote:
> >>> Assume if dubbed @ 3.75 IPS, I'd hear tape noise. Thanks. Jack p.s.
> >>> Yeah, mono, John!!
> >> Tape noise and other detail (including musical) likely lost in
> >> lossy-encoding. One reason why you really can't judge anything with any
> >> degree of subtly with a typical MP3 (or Youtube encoding).
> >>
> >> geoff
> > Geoff, please, really. The Orleans sent me a demo of one of their hits. I said it sounded like it was recorded at 3.75 IPS. They confirmed I was correct.
>
> Whooop-di-doo. Good guess.
>
> >
> > Same with CS&N song on RCA, 3.75", on CD, and you can HEAR it.
> >
> > MP3s do not add tape noise.
> >
> > Jack
>
>
> "Apparently the concept of "lost" is lost on you.
>
> If subtle, tape noise can be lost, reduced, or altered with lossy
> encoding. If strong it will get through.
>
> If not data-reduced and transferred at CD quality, the tape noise will
> be pretty much exactly as per the tape, whatever speed.

So far, my theory remains correct. If you remix the session tapes, the result is "quieter" than with most "Master" tapes (greater dynamics, too). Master tapes wear and tape wear noise becomes apparent, but others will "remaster" them. So funny.

Jack
>
> geoff

[JackA]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:21:37 AM UTC-5, david gourley wrote:
> Nil > said...news:XnsA56C7CE48094nilch1
> @wheedledeedle.moc:
>
> > On 09 Dec 2015, david gourley > wrote
> > in rec.audio.pro:
> >
> >> Don't take the hook, Geoff. CSN wasn't even on RCA. The troll
> >> doesn't care what your factual answers are if you haven't guessed
> >> by now.
> >>
> >> Like mcp6453 said, Agnew's just making up stuff (and I personally
> >> know mcp6453 is for real).
> >
> > I'm glad you recognize it. I think most people here also recognize the
> > blatant troll tactics. It loads every single post with intentional lies
> > and half-truths, hoping people will "correct" it and get sucked into an
> > endless "discussion". The creep knows how to start things up and keep
> > them going for as long as it's got someone on the hook. It's made a
> > career out of it, and it's gotten pretty good at it over the years.
> > I've watched it happen in several newsgroups. It doesn't matter what
> > the topic is, it's all about manipulation and masturbation.
>
> Yes Nil, agreed and that's why it lives in my killfile.


Blinders, like a horse. Funny.

Jack

>
> It's way easier to teach a pig to sing!
>
> david

[Scott Dorsey]

Nil > wrote:
>
>I'm glad you recognize it. I think most people here also recognize the
>blatant troll tactics. It loads every single post with intentional lies
>and half-truths, hoping people will "correct" it and get sucked into an
>endless "discussion". The creep knows how to start things up and keep
>them going for as long as it's got someone on the hook. It's made a
>career out of it, and it's gotten pretty good at it over the years.
>I've watched it happen in several newsgroups. It doesn't matter what
>the topic is, it's all about manipulation and masturbation.

I have to say that his imaginary view of the record industry is kind of
hilarious, and certainly a lot more exciting than the actual industry that
I've worked in. There are certainly times when I have wished things were
a lot more like the record industry of his imagination than the one that
consisted mostly of hours of laborious producton work.

God, and it's Christmas Special time again.... three of them back to back
with only minimal rehearsal and too many cues...
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 12:46:05 AM UTC-5, Nil wrote:
> On 09 Dec 2015, david gourley > wrote
> in rec.audio.pro:
>
> > Don't take the hook, Geoff. CSN wasn't even on RCA. The troll
> > doesn't care what your factual answers are if you haven't guessed
> > by now.
> >
> > Like mcp6453 said, Agnew's just making up stuff (and I personally
> > know mcp6453 is for real).
>
> I'm glad you recognize it. I think most people here also recognize the
> blatant troll tactics. It loads every single post with intentional lies
> and half-truths, hoping people will "correct" it and get sucked into an
> endless "discussion". The creep knows how to start things up and keep
> them going for as long as it's got someone on the hook. It's made a
> career out of it, and it's gotten pretty good at it over the years.
> I've watched it happen in several newsgroups. It doesn't matter what
> the topic is, it's all about manipulation and masturbation.

Yeah, Nil, I feel you're correct. By the way, have you made that mono from stereo rendition. I know that's really tough to accomplish! Maybe you should gain an education rather than whine about me.

Jack

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

snips

>God, and it's Christmas Special time again.... three of them back to back
>with only minimal rehearsal and too many cues...

Guffaw. Did a PA gig for a Christmas show last night - had a "rehearsal/sound check"
the day before. Of course, just before the show, they added elements... during the
show, some people did things very different from the sound check (such as completely
shuffling their locations on the mics dialed in for them the day before).

At least when I'm doing production, I can press "rewind" and have another go. In PA
land, it's all VFR/seat-of-pants, no matter how much prep.

Shake my head, punch more holes in the ceiling as my hands fly up again. Sigh.
Somehow, though, it works out and the smiles and happy back slaps go all around
afterward on "what a great show" -- even some audience members noticed and said nice
things.

We're enablers. If the thing crashed and burned, you could say, "well, see, that's
not what we rehearsed/discussed, and this is what happens."

Of course, that would never wash. It'd be the tech's fault, no matter what. So, love
it, and go along for the bouncy thrill ride....

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Luxey]

четвртак, 10. децембар 2015. 19.36.34 UTC+1, Frank Stearns је написао/ла:

> the day before. Of course, just before the show, they added elements... during the
> show, some people did things very different from the sound check (such as completely
> shuffling their locations on the mics dialed in for them the day before).

I think that is compulsory, kind of compensantion for their anal charachter..

I think we've all been through simillar routine. I tried to "fight it" by
asking musicians where they prefers the mic, from which side and all that,
so not to be in his way when playing, counting they'll respect own decissions.
Actually, I let them place the stand at the most convenient spot for them.
Only then, listening to output, with their approval, I correct the angle of the
mic on the stand, not moving it from the spot, untill we agree it is what we
want to hear.

Alas, the moment I turn my back, they are grabbing the stand. blindly
moving it arround to some other spot, or at least angling the mic in another
direction.

[JackA]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 6:29:09 PM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
> четвртак, 10. децембар 2015. 19.36.34 UTC+1, Frank Stearns је написао/ла:
>
> > the day before. Of course, just before the show, they added elements... during the
> > show, some people did things very different from the sound check (such as completely
> > shuffling their locations on the mics dialed in for them the day before).
>
> I think that is compulsory, kind of compensantion for their anal charachter.
>
> I think we've all been through simillar routine. I tried to "fight it" by
> asking musicians where they prefers the mic, from which side and all that,
> so not to be in his way when playing, counting they'll respect own decissions.
> Actually, I let them place the stand at the most convenient spot for them..
> Only then, listening to output, with their approval, I correct the angle of the
> mic on the stand, not moving it from the spot, untill we agree it is what we
> want to hear.
>
> Alas, the moment I turn my back, they are grabbing the stand. blindly
> moving it arround to some other spot, or at least angling the mic in another
> direction.

They must be unprofessional.

Jack