Acadia

[jason]

I am reluctant to do this, but the devil made me; I had no choice.

My wife is a composer. When her music is performed locally, I tag along
and record the performances. She writes choral music that's usually
performed first at the state university in town and writes chamber pieces
that get performed by local musicians, mostly members of the Hudson
Valley Philharmonic, who are friends and colleagues as part of a chamber
concert series. For these recordings, two of the HVP players donated
their time and chops. Shirley's on piano. Recordings were made in my
living room with various Rode mics (I can afford them...) on a Tascam DR-
680. Laundered with Audition.

Here are some samples of her music and my recordings. I present them (the
recordings, anyway) with considerable trepidation because I've been
following this newsgroup for years and am forever reminded of how much I
don't know.

https://soundcloud.com/jwnp/sets/acadia

[Karamako[_3_]]

Le 16/01/2016 05:18, Jason a écrit :
> I am reluctant to do this, but the devil made me; I had no choice.
>
> My wife is a composer. When her music is performed locally, I tag along
> and record the performances. She writes choral music that's usually
> performed first at the state university in town and writes chamber pieces
> that get performed by local musicians, mostly members of the Hudson
> Valley Philharmonic, who are friends and colleagues as part of a chamber
> concert series. For these recordings, two of the HVP players donated
> their time and chops. Shirley's on piano. Recordings were made in my
> living room with various Rode mics (I can afford them...) on a Tascam DR-
> 680. Laundered with Audition.
>
> Here are some samples of her music and my recordings. I present them (the
> recordings, anyway) with considerable trepidation because I've been
> following this newsgroup for years and am forever reminded of how much I
> don't know.
>
> https://soundcloud.com/jwnp/sets/acadia
>

? Sorry, but to me it doesn't sound like live music, rather midi music.

[jason]

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 22:02:39 +0100 "Karamako"
> wrote in article <Cdymy.89815$a_7.51048
@fx43.am4>
> ? Sorry, but to me it doesn't sound like live music, rather midi music.
>

Interesting! ..but definitely live.

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Jason wrote:
> "Karamako"
> <
> > ? Sorry, but to me it doesn't sound like live music, rather midi music.
> >
>
> Interesting! ..but definitely live.


** I've been waiting for others to comment on this, but you only have one reply so far. I listened to the first sample track using headphones.

All the instruments sound heavily compressed, there is no room ambience and it is almost mono. This has to be from a combination of factors like overly close miking, too much post processing and maybe the use of low bit rate MP3 encoding.

Not nice to listen too.

Maybe try gain with just a crossed pair of mics and very little or no processing.


.... Phil

[jason]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 18:27:04 -0800 (PST) "Phil Allison" <pallison49
@gmail.com> wrote in article <7dae23c4-f607-4242-abfd-
>
>
> ** I've been waiting for others to comment on this, but you only have
one reply so far. I listened to the first sample track using headphones.
>
> All the instruments sound heavily compressed, there is no room ambience and it is almost mono. This has to be from a combination of factors like overly close miking, too much post processing and maybe the use of low bit rate MP3 encoding.
>
> Not nice to listen too.
>
> Maybe try gain with just a crossed pair of mics and very little or no processing.
>
>
> ... Phil

Thanks, Phil. There is actually almost no compression - though the mics
were close; I was trying to keep the instruments from bleeding into each
other. There were four mics - one each for cello and oboe and a NT4 XY
stereo mic on the piano. I agree it's almost mono and I'm working on
that. I have a wider-sounding version but I'm not sure where or if to
draw the line.

I don't have much experience with SoundCloud - the files I uploaded were
44.1/16 .wav files, but I don't know what SoundCloud does to them if
anything.

Jason

[jason]

Some coincidence! A minute after I responded to Phil, an email appeared
inviting me to watch a video about mastering for SoundCloud. Indeed, if
the video is telling the truth, SC turns uncompressed files into 128 kb/s
mp3's. Ugh - didn't know that. Perhaps if you pay for the snazzier
service there's a way around that. Next time, if there is a next time,
I'll upload the .wav files to DropBox instead.

[Frank Stearns]

Jason > writes:

>Some coincidence! A minute after I responded to Phil, an email appeared
>inviting me to watch a video about mastering for SoundCloud. Indeed, if
>the video is telling the truth, SC turns uncompressed files into 128 kb/s
>mp3's. Ugh - didn't know that. Perhaps if you pay for the snazzier
>service there's a way around that. Next time, if there is a next time,
>I'll upload the .wav files to DropBox instead.

It's possible then that this service "auto-mastered" for you. My comments would be
much the same as Phil's, though the compression was rather odd sounding -- peculiar
attack and release times, maybe even some sort of GR-dependent automatic ratio
and/or auto release.

As far as the near mono aspect -- you won't hurt anything, so try a few different
mix versions with different pan settings. Try some different extremes to see what
happens, then dial it back to something more natural -- or maybe you'll find some
extreme pans useful at times. Experiment.

And listen to other recordings across different genres in an environment where you
have half-way decent imaging and can get a feel for what was done with pan.
(Spoiler: some panning and spatial location is good and well thought out, some is
bad, some is just plain stupid.)

Most important of all -- get to live, unamplified events. Sit a little closer,
toward the center. Close your eyes and listen (don't look) **listen** to how things
are laid out spatially -- left to right and front to back. Then in your own post
environment see what you can do with pan, reverb, and slight delays to really open
up the space you're creating.

For some reason, the spatial aspect of mixing is something that younger engineers
can be really afraid of. You just need to dive in.

Frank
Mobile Audio


--

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 1/18/2016 10:02 PM, Jason wrote:
> Some coincidence! A minute after I responded to Phil, an email appeared
> inviting me to watch a video about mastering for SoundCloud. Indeed, if
> the video is telling the truth, SC turns uncompressed files into 128 kb/s
> mp3's. Ugh

128 kpbs MP3 is quite tolerable for listening to most music, but if you
want a critique of your sonics, then the less done to change that, the
better.

I didn't give it a critical listen for space, dynamics, ambience and
such, because I generally don't listen to those things. However, I
thought that the playing sounded pretty stiff (which may have led to the
comment about it sounding like MIDI sequencing) and that put me in the
mood of "I don't care how great the tones are or how much ambient sound
is missing." I just woudn't bother to listen to it a second time unless
it was my job.

However, on the surface, I don't think the recording itself deserves
much criticism unless you ask for it, which you did. And asking for it
makes people more fussy than they ordinarily would be, at least I hope
so - in the sense that hearing what they perceive as imperfections in
the recording spoils what would otherwise be an enjoyable listen.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the mix being nearly mono, in
fact I didn't really notice it.

I can tell you that using a stereo mic on a grand piano doesn't give you
very much stereo piano unless it's too close. If you record this
ensemble again, you might try putting the cello and oboe in a good
sounding space and record them (as well as the space) with your stereo
mic, then use your other two mics on the piano so you can get some sense
of width. And don't make avoiding leakage a high priority. Think about
how you want the ensemble to "look" audibly. I figure the piano to one
side of center, and the oboe and cello to the other side of center. Your
choice of who goes where, but arrange them in the relative positions
where they'll be in the mix.




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

[jason]

Thank you, Frank and Mike. This was an experiment "close-mic'ing" the
instruments. Most recordings I make of small ensembles have been done
with a single stereo mic--the NT4 or SP LSD2--placed at a distance of
around 12-15 feet in front of the ensemble at a height of 10' or so. They
are usually recorded in auditoriums or churches which present some rumbly
noise problems but also provide some natural room ambience that my sample
totally lacks. Point taken.

I had a chat with a musician friend who regularly uses SoundCloud and he
tells that you really need to pay $'s for the upgraded service level
because they do NOT muck around with the files. There's no automatic mp3
conversion.

I always learn here.

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "128 kpbs MP3 is quite tolerable for listening to most music, ..."

What year is it?

128 barely tolerable for spoken word.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 16-01-2016 05:18, Jason wrote:
> I am reluctant to do this, but the devil made me; I had no choice.
>
> My wife is a composer. When her music is performed locally, I tag along
> and record the performances. She writes choral music that's usually
> performed first at the state university in town and writes chamber pieces
> that get performed by local musicians, mostly members of the Hudson
> Valley Philharmonic, who are friends and colleagues as part of a chamber
> concert series. For these recordings, two of the HVP players donated
> their time and chops. Shirley's on piano. Recordings were made in my
> living room with various Rode mics (I can afford them...) on a Tascam DR-
> 680. Laundered with Audition.
>
> Here are some samples of her music and my recordings. I present them (the
> recordings, anyway) with considerable trepidation because I've been
> following this newsgroup for years and am forever reminded of how much I
> don't know.
>
> https://soundcloud.com/jwnp/sets/acadia
>

"This playlist has no tracks" ... ???

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 20-01-2016 04:15, wrote:

> Mike Rivers wrote: "128 kpbs MP3 is quite tolerable for listening to most music, ..."

> What year is it?

> 128 barely tolerable for spoken word.

It is actually less tolerable for spoken word than for music. The trick
to use with soundcloud and similar services is to convert to 32 kHz
sample rate 16 bit properly dithered before upload and upload in full
wordlength and leave bit-reduction to them.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[John Williamson]

On 20/01/2016 06:53, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 16-01-2016 05:18, Jason wrote:
>> Here are some samples of her music and my recordings. I present them (the
>> recordings, anyway) with considerable trepidation because I've been
>> following this newsgroup for years and am forever reminded of how much I
>> don't know.
>>
>> https://soundcloud.com/jwnp/sets/acadia
>>
>
> "This playlist has no tracks" ... ???
>
Maybe it's not available in Europe? It says the same here.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 10:10:47 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 1/18/2016 10:02 PM, Jason wrote:
> > Some coincidence! A minute after I responded to Phil, an email appeared
> > inviting me to watch a video about mastering for SoundCloud. Indeed, if
> > the video is telling the truth, SC turns uncompressed files into 128 kb/s
> > mp3's. Ugh
>
> 128 kpbs MP3 is quite tolerable for listening to most music, but if you
> want a critique of your sonics, then the less done to change that, the
> better.


During the Napster file sharing days, most 128k's sounded foul, I'd always hunted for 160k files at a minimum. But, then along comes one song, at 96k, and it sounded NICE (Spiral Staircase - Broken Hearted Man)! So, that's when I thought, the better the "mastering", the better a song will sound even at a low bit-rate!

Jack

>
> I didn't give it a critical listen for space, dynamics, ambience and
> such, because I generally don't listen to those things. However, I
> thought that the playing sounded pretty stiff (which may have led to the
> comment about it sounding like MIDI sequencing) and that put me in the
> mood of "I don't care how great the tones are or how much ambient sound
> is missing." I just woudn't bother to listen to it a second time unless
> it was my job.
>
> However, on the surface, I don't think the recording itself deserves
> much criticism unless you ask for it, which you did. And asking for it
> makes people more fussy than they ordinarily would be, at least I hope
> so - in the sense that hearing what they perceive as imperfections in
> the recording spoils what would otherwise be an enjoyable listen.
> Personally, I don't have a problem with the mix being nearly mono, in
> fact I didn't really notice it.
>
> I can tell you that using a stereo mic on a grand piano doesn't give you
> very much stereo piano unless it's too close. If you record this
> ensemble again, you might try putting the cello and oboe in a good
> sounding space and record them (as well as the space) with your stereo
> mic, then use your other two mics on the piano so you can get some sense
> of width. And don't make avoiding leakage a high priority. Think about
> how you want the ensemble to "look" audibly. I figure the piano to one
> side of center, and the oboe and cello to the other side of center. Your
> choice of who goes where, but arrange them in the relative positions
> where they'll be in the mix.
>
>
>
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "During the Napster file sharing days, most 128k's sounded foul, I'd always hunted for 160k files at a minimum. But, then along comes one song, at 96k, and it sounded NICE (Spiral Staircase - Broken Hearted Man)! So, that's when I thought, the better the "mastering", the better a song will sound even at a low bit-rate!

Jack
- show quoted text -"

Very good, JackA, regarding the difference mastering makes
vs difference in formats.

But, while Peter Larsen's suggestion regarding 128 for spoken
word is open to debate, he IS right in the second half of his
reply: Send Sound Cloud the highest quality file you possibly
can(subject to upload rates, etc), preferably lossless.

Whatever they do to it during publication will be less noticed
than with a lossy upload.

[Scott Dorsey]

Jason > wrote:
>Thank you, Frank and Mike. This was an experiment "close-mic'ing" the
>instruments. Most recordings I make of small ensembles have been done
>with a single stereo mic--the NT4 or SP LSD2--placed at a distance of
>around 12-15 feet in front of the ensemble at a height of 10' or so. They
>are usually recorded in auditoriums or churches which present some rumbly
>noise problems but also provide some natural room ambience that my sample
>totally lacks. Point taken.

Do not be afraid of using fake room ambience! A little bit of reverb can
go a long way, and slightly different reverb patterns on different instruments
can give an impression of them being in slightly different spaces. It's
very easy to overdo that, but done subtly it can open things up a lot.

Also, of course, it's possible to have distant mikes and add in spots to bring
instruments closer and control the ambience of different instruments
individually.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tim Sprout]

On 1/19/2016 10:00 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 20-01-2016 04:15, wrote:
>
>> Mike Rivers wrote: "128 kpbs MP3 is quite tolerable for listening to most music, ..."
>
>> What year is it?
>
>> 128 barely tolerable for spoken word.
>
> It is actually less tolerable for spoken word than for music. The trick to use with soundcloud and similar services is to convert to 32 kHz sample rate 16 bit properly dithered before upload and upload in full wordlength and leave bit-reduction to them.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Thanks for this. To clarify my understanding, use 32 kHz sample rate during DAW mixdown because it is a multiple of 128 kpbs which Soundcloud uses, convert from the higher internal DAW 24 or 32 bit resolution to the lower 16 bit resolution Soundcloud uses using dither to add desirable noise to mask less desirable noise, and upload the full 16 bit wordlength to Soundcloud?

Tim Sprout

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 8:47:07 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "During the Napster file sharing days, most 128k's sounded foul, I'd always hunted for 160k files at a minimum. But, then along comes one song, at 96k, and it sounded NICE (Spiral Staircase - Broken Hearted Man)! So, that's when I thought, the better the "mastering", the better a song will sound even at a low bit-rate!
>
> Jack
> - show quoted text -"
>
> Very good, JackA, regarding the difference mastering makes
> vs difference in formats.

-- It's tough to say 100%. Maybe encoding issues along with slower computers caused problems (too). I remember with Win95 and a DOS based encoder, took FOREVER to encode a single song!!

>
> But, while Peter Larsen's suggestion regarding 128 for spoken
> word is open to debate, he IS right in the second half of his
> reply: Send Sound Cloud the highest quality file you possibly
> can(subject to upload rates, etc), preferably lossless.

-- I'm not sure his (Peter's) point. Higher Q means better vocal clarity . Noisy transmission, narrow bandwidth for just voice, then I agree.
[i]
>
> Whatever they do to it during publication will be less noticed
> than with a lossy upload.

-- I don't like this Sound Cloud, why I have my own website. No need to install nasty software to transfer files!

Jack

[Nil[_2_]]

On 20 Jan 2016, Peter Larsen > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> It is actually less tolerable for spoken word than for music. The
> trick to use with soundcloud and similar services is to convert to
> 32 kHz sample rate 16 bit properly dithered before upload and
> upload in full wordlength and leave bit-reduction to them.

Why 32 kHz?

[Nil[_2_]]

On 20 Jan 2016, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> But, while Peter Larsen's suggestion regarding 128 for spoken
> word is open to debate, he IS right in the second half of his
> reply: Send Sound Cloud the highest quality file you possibly
> can(subject to upload rates, etc), preferably lossless.

That is NOT what he said.

[jason]

On 20 Jan 2016 11:28:08 -0500 "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in
article >
> Also, of course, it's possible to have distant mikes and add in spots to bring
> instruments closer and control the ambience of different instruments
> individually.
> --scott
>

That's what I have done in auditoriums and it's worked. There is
sometimes one instrument in the ensemble that is featured in a piece and
I put a mic on it and can make it a little more prominent after the fact.

Recently I've tried M-S recording and like how I can control room
ambience after the fact.

[jason]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:46:32 +0000 "John Williamson"
> wrote in article <dg8vrbFg9c9U1
@mid.individual.net>
> Maybe it's not available in Europe? It says the same here.
>

Dunno - I'm a neophyte SC user. I may give up on SC and park recordings
on DropBox. At least DB won't "re-master" them!

[jason]

I had been reluctant to experiment with different mic approaches because
I usually record a one-time, live performance. If the experiment fails, I
got nothin'... In a SMH moment a while ago I realized that for few $'s I
could buy a bar allowing me to mount two mics on the stand. The DR-680
can record a pair of stereo tracks, so I can try XY -and- M-S
simultaneously.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 12:48:17 PM UTC-5, Tim Sprout wrote:
> On 1/19/2016 10:00 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
> > On 20-01-2016 04:15, wrote:
> >
> >> Mike Rivers wrote: "128 kpbs MP3 is quite tolerable for listening to most music, ..."
> >
> >> What year is it?
> >
> >> 128 barely tolerable for spoken word.
> >
> > It is actually less tolerable for spoken word than for music. The trick to use with soundcloud and similar services is to convert to 32 kHz sample rate 16 bit properly dithered before upload and upload in full wordlength and leave bit-reduction to them.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Peter Larsen
>
> Thanks for this. To clarify my understanding, use 32 kHz sample rate during DAW mixdown because it is a multiple of 128 kpbs which Soundcloud uses, convert from the higher internal DAW 24 or 32 bit resolution to the lower 16 bit resolution Soundcloud uses using dither to add desirable noise to mask less desirable noise, and upload the full 16 bit wordlength to Soundcloud?
>
> Tim Sprout

Dither has NOTHING to do with audible masking.
Dither works even for pure math applications that have nothing to do with hearing.
M

[Scott Dorsey]

Nil > wrote:
>On 20 Jan 2016, Peter Larsen > wrote in
>rec.audio.pro:
>
>> It is actually less tolerable for spoken word than for music. The
>> trick to use with soundcloud and similar services is to convert to
>> 32 kHz sample rate 16 bit properly dithered before upload and
>> upload in full wordlength and leave bit-reduction to them.
>
>Why 32 kHz?

I am assuming that the lower sample rate means effectively less compression
needed in order to get the file to a given size, and the high frequencies
above 16 Khz are not very critical anyway. I believe this is a matter of
trading something that makes a small difference for something that makes a
larger one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Jason > wrote:
>On 20 Jan 2016 11:28:08 -0500 "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in
>article >
>> Also, of course, it's possible to have distant mikes and add in spots to bring
>> instruments closer and control the ambience of different instruments
>> individually.
>
>That's what I have done in auditoriums and it's worked. There is
>sometimes one instrument in the ensemble that is featured in a piece and
>I put a mic on it and can make it a little more prominent after the fact.

In the digital era this is much easier since you can easily time-delay them
to line up properly, which makes the spots stick out much less.

>Recently I've tried M-S recording and like how I can control room
>ambience after the fact.

But you can't control room ambience that way, you can only control stereo
width. Of course, you can add a pair of omni outriggers and use that to
control room ambience after the fact... the combination of M-S with outriggers
is very popular and one of the NPR stations in the area uses it extensively.
--scott

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

[jason]

On 21 Jan 2016 10:12:10 -0500 "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in
article >
>I put a mic on it and can make it a little more prominent after the
fact.
>
> In the digital era this is much easier since you can easily time-delay them
> to line up properly, which makes the spots stick out much less.
If I can, usually I can, I put myself in the player's position before the
recording and clap my hands a couple of times. That makes aligning them
pretty easy.

> >Recently I've tried M-S recording and like how I can control room
> >ambience after the fact.
>
> But you can't control room ambience that way, you can only control stereo
> width. Of course, you can add a pair of omni outriggers and use that to
> control room ambience after the fact... the combination of M-S with outriggers
> is very popular and one of the NPR stations in the area uses it extensively.
> --scott

Thanks, Scott, I'll try that next time. :-)


Jason

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 20-01-2016 18:48, Tim Sprout wrote:

>>> 128 barely tolerable for spoken word.

>> It is actually less tolerable for spoken word than for music. The
>> trick to use with soundcloud and similar services is to convert to 32
>> kHz sample rate 16 bit properly dithered before upload and upload in
>> full wordlength and leave bit-reduction to them.

>> Peter Larsen

> Thanks for this. To clarify my understanding, use 32 kHz sample rate
> during DAW mixdown

No! - stay at whatever your house sample rate is. What you upload to
Soundcloud should be mastered for Soundcloud.

> because it is a multiple of 128 kpbs which Soundcloud
> uses,

Those are incommensurable concepts. No. You downsample AFTER mastering
to get rid of the treble that perceptual coding is likely to replace
with white noise anyway. By doing that you avoid wasting wordlength on
it and get a cleaner sound with less splatty treble.

> convert from the higher internal DAW 24 or 32 bit resolution to
> the lower 16 bit resolution Soundcloud uses using dither to add
> desirable noise to mask less desirable noise, and upload the full 16 bit
> wordlength to Soundcloud?

Unless you master for dvd audio a mastered file should in my
comprehension be 48 or 44 kHz 16 bits. Some may know this better than I
do, corrections will be appreciated if I am wrong.

> Tim Sprout

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 21-01-2016 00:22, Nil wrote:

> On 20 Jan 2016, Peter Larsen > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:

>> It is actually less tolerable for spoken word than for music. The
>> trick to use with soundcloud and similar services is to convert to
>> 32 kHz sample rate 16 bit properly dithered before upload and
>> upload in full wordlength and leave bit-reduction to them.

> Why 32 kHz?

To ensure that the perceptual encoder, whichever it is, doesn't even try
to encode high treble. This because real treble tends to be replaced
with bursts of white noise - make som fft's of mp3s if in doubt - and to
save wordlength that is of better use in the midrange.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Tim Sprout]

On 1/22/2016 7:13 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 20-01-2016 18:48, Tim Sprout wrote:
>
> >>> 128 barely tolerable for spoken word.
>
>>> It is actually less tolerable for spoken word than for music. The
>>> trick to use with soundcloud and similar services is to convert to 32
>>> kHz sample rate 16 bit properly dithered before upload and upload in
>>> full wordlength and leave bit-reduction to them.
>
>>> Peter Larsen
>
>> Thanks for this. To clarify my understanding, use 32 kHz sample rate
>> during DAW mixdown
>
> No! - stay at whatever your house sample rate is. What you upload to Soundcloud should be mastered for Soundcloud.
>
>> because it is a multiple of 128 kpbs which Soundcloud
>> uses,
>
> Those are incommensurable concepts. No. You downsample AFTER mastering to get rid of the treble that perceptual coding is likely to replace with white noise anyway. By doing that you avoid wasting wordlength on it and get a cleaner sound with less splatty treble.
>
>> convert from the higher internal DAW 24 or 32 bit resolution to
>> the lower 16 bit resolution Soundcloud uses using dither to add
>> desirable noise to mask less desirable noise, and upload the full 16 bit
>> wordlength to Soundcloud?
>
> Unless you master for dvd audio a mastered file should in my comprehension be 48 or 44 kHz 16 bits. Some may know this better than I do, corrections will be appreciated if I am wrong.
>
>> Tim Sprout
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Thank you, Peter. Helpful clarification.

Tim Sprout