OT Joe Walsh

[Gareth Magennis]

Gosh, I used to like Joe Walsh's music a lot, but lost contact over the
years.

Can't believe he is still here today-ish, actually just as good, if not
better - humour, voice and guitar playing intact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcPq9O96qpE



Gareth.

[JackA]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 3:45:34 PM UTC-5, gareth magennis wrote:
> Gosh, I used to like Joe Walsh's music a lot, but lost contact over the
> years.
>
> Can't believe he is still here today-ish, actually just as good, if not
> better - humour, voice and guitar playing intact.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcPq9O96qpE

Looks like Eagle Rock has an issue with that video.

Jack
>
>
>
> Gareth.

[[email protected]]

JackA:

That's where YouTube is headed. Pretty soon
the only videos allowed on there will be of
families - Dad swinging from a ladder hanging
Christmas lights on the roof, mom in the kitchen
setting fire to the oven, and the kids riding the
family dog around the den like a horse!


No more copywritten material period. Not
what YouTube was originally meant for.

[Gareth Magennis]

wrote in message
...

JackA:

That's where YouTube is headed. Pretty soon
the only videos allowed on there will be of
families - Dad swinging from a ladder hanging
Christmas lights on the roof, mom in the kitchen
setting fire to the oven, and the kids riding the
family dog around the den like a horse!


No more copywritten material period. Not
what YouTube was originally meant for.





Well that's weird, the link works perfectly well in the UK.

It is a concert recorded in the UK, but I doubt that has much to do with it.
??


Gareth.

[Gareth Magennis]

Oh well, this is the album I fell in love with as a naive youth who thought
he knew everything already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec-dT8okbAQ&list=PL02D17A451BE7753E


Gareth.

[JackA]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 4:18:27 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA:
>
> That's where YouTube is headed. Pretty soon
> the only videos allowed on there will be of
> families - Dad swinging from a ladder hanging
> Christmas lights on the roof, mom in the kitchen
> setting fire to the oven, and the kids riding the
> family dog around the den like a horse!
>
>
> No more copywritten material period. Not
> what YouTube was originally meant for.

I know what you mean!

I see things, like The Beatles - the *new* owners don't wish to give anything away for free (while Google's YT makes a fortune for it), so they axe it from YouTube.

Jack

[[email protected]]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 4:31:01 PM UTC-5, gareth magennis wrote:
> wrote in message legroups.com...
>
> JackA:
>
> That's where YouTube is headed. Pretty soon
> the only videos allowed on there will be of
> families - Dad swinging from a ladder hanging
> Christmas lights on the roof, mom in the kitchen
> setting fire to the oven, and the kids riding the
> family dog around the den like a horse!
>
>
> No more copywritten material period. Not
> what YouTube was originally meant for.
>
>
>
>
>
> Well that's weird, the link works perfectly well in the UK.
>
> It is a concert recorded in the UK, but I doubt that has much to do with it.
> ??
>
>
> Gareth.

Here in the States it says "..not available in your
country."

Kind of explains things.

[Gareth Magennis]

wrote in message
...

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 4:31:01 PM UTC-5, gareth magennis wrote:
> wrote in message legroups.com...
>
> JackA:
>
> That's where YouTube is headed. Pretty soon
> the only videos allowed on there will be of
> families - Dad swinging from a ladder hanging
> Christmas lights on the roof, mom in the kitchen
> setting fire to the oven, and the kids riding the
> family dog around the den like a horse!
>
>
> No more copywritten material period. Not
> what YouTube was originally meant for.
>
>
>
>
>
> Well that's weird, the link works perfectly well in the UK.
>
> It is a concert recorded in the UK, but I doubt that has much to do with
> it.
> ??
>
>
> Gareth.

Here in the States it says "..not available in your
country."

Kind of explains things.





OK, I will do a quick review then:

Joe Walsh, looking kind of old, but sober. Sings good, plays guitar good,
seems to be getting on with what he does best.
Which is being Joe Walsh.

I like that.




Gareth.

[JackA]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 6:09:07 PM UTC-5, gareth magennis wrote:
> wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 4:31:01 PM UTC-5, gareth magennis wrote:
> > wrote in message legroups.com...
> >
> > JackA:
> >
> > That's where YouTube is headed. Pretty soon
> > the only videos allowed on there will be of
> > families - Dad swinging from a ladder hanging
> > Christmas lights on the roof, mom in the kitchen
> > setting fire to the oven, and the kids riding the
> > family dog around the den like a horse!
> >
> >
> > No more copywritten material period. Not
> > what YouTube was originally meant for.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well that's weird, the link works perfectly well in the UK.
> >
> > It is a concert recorded in the UK, but I doubt that has much to do with
> > it.
> > ??
> >
> >
> > Gareth.
>
> Here in the States it says "..not available in your
> country."
>
> Kind of explains things.
>
>
>
>
>
> OK, I will do a quick review then:
>
> Joe Walsh, looking kind of old, but sober. Sings good, plays guitar good,
> seems to be getting on with what he does best.
> Which is being Joe Walsh.
>
> I like that.

Liked Joe, but liked him with The James Gang. But, the root of my music interest is with Big Bands, because most are recorded live and little, if any, instrument amplification is needed and very dynamic sound. I feel, Big Bands became famous since they could fill a large ballroom with sound without the need of high power amplifiers...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVbTTmEmDxY

Jack

>
>
>
>
> Gareth.

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "Liked Joe, but liked him with The James Gang. But, the root of my music interest is with Big Bands, because most are recorded live and little, if any, instrument amplification is needed and very dynamic sound. I feel, Big Bands became famous since they could fill a large ballroom with sound without the need of high power amplifiers... "


You, JackA, advocating "dynamic sound"?


I don't believe it...

[JackA]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 8:26:02 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "Liked Joe, but liked him with The James Gang. But, the root of my music interest is with Big Bands, because most are recorded live and little, if any, instrument amplification is needed and very dynamic sound. I feel, Big Bands became famous since they could fill a large ballroom with sound without the need of high power amplifiers... "
>
>
> You, JackA, advocating "dynamic sound"?
>
>
> I don't believe it...

Look, without SOME compression, some, actually, many analog songs will sound a bit lifeless if you don't add compression. I mean, YOU'RE the one who advocates not changing sound. So, do you want dull CD sound or how it sounded on vinyl?

Jack

[[email protected]]

- show quoted text -
Look, without SOME compression, some, actually, many analog songs will sound a bit lifeless if you don't add compression. I mean, YOU'RE the one who advocates not changing sound. So, do you want dull CD sound or how it sounded on vinyl?

Jack "

CDs by themselves don't sound "dull". They have the
potential to kick vinyl's ASS spectrum-wise and
dynamics wise. It's up to the client how it ultimately
sounds. Same, to an extent, goes for the vinyl record.

[polymod]

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message ...


<snip>

Joe Walsh, looking kind of old, but sober. Sings good, plays guitar good,
seems to be getting on with what he does best.
Which is being Joe Walsh.

I like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Joe did some nice playing between segments of an NFL broadcast a couple
years back.
Just him with his axe and an amp, and it took the place of the standard
music beds the league used.

It was wonderful. Always liked his playing and it always amazed me how
distinct his vocal diction was when he sang opposed to his speaking voice.
Same with Ozzy.

Poly

[JackA]

That simply isn't true. Fromy my hearing, man had little tools to master with. It wasn't until DAW became a reality is when things began to audio improve on CD. If what you feel is true, vinyl fans would have never returned to it or even had it supllieda. As that participant here mentioned, a profrsssor has to TEACH people what good audio quality is. Even Hitler said, people do not know what is good for them. And watching the Democratic party destroying America, and the world, I can firmly believe it.

Jack

[geoff]

On 14/02/2016 7:28 AM, JackA wrote:
> That simply isn't true. Fromy my hearing, man had little tools to
> master with. It wasn't until DAW became a reality is when things
> began to audio improve on CD. If what you feel is true, vinyl fans
> would have never returned to it or even had it supllieda. As that
> participant here mentioned, a profrsssor has to TEACH people what
> good audio quality is. Even Hitler said, people do not know what is
> good for them. And watching the Democratic party destroying America,
> and the world, I can firmly believe it.

Well clearly your hearing is as good as your typing.

Many of those exact same tools are used today (sometimes exclusively) to
master audio for CD or other digital results.

Sure DAWs offer a lot more versatility, range, and amounts of control,
but in the end it's the person doing the job who gets to choose what
they want to use, if the end result pleases whoever is paying the
bills...... maybe occasionally with exceptions. But they can turn down
the job if they feel artistically compromised.

geoff

[None]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
>

You seem to be trying to talk sense to something that you'd be better
off scraping off your boot-sole on the edge of the curb. You're
attempting to engage, and therefore encouraging, a worthless puddle of
slime that makes common cause with the jack-booted goose-steppers of
early twentieth century Germany, and the hooded cowards in
yellow-stained sheets, of the US from the reconstruction age to the
present-day, among others.

Please don't be like Dorsey. Don't encourage the vermin.

[[email protected]]

199.21.136.70

Nameservers:
ns2.vermontel.net >> 216.66.108.34
ns1.vermontel.net >> 216.66.108.26

Continent: North America (NA)
Country: United States (US)
Capital: Washington
State: New Hampshire
City Location: Orford
Postal: 03777
Area: 603
Metro: 523
ISP: Topsham Communications LLC
Organization: Topsham Communications LLC
AS Number: AS22121 Topsham Communications LLC
Time Zone: America/New_York
Local Time: 07:04:54
Timezone GMT offset: -18000
Sunrise / Sunset: 06:47 / 17:16

[None]

< thekma @ ****4brains.com > wrote in message
...

Are you stalking me again Theckma, you retarded dumb****? Not really;
maybe you're stalking some server that my post passed through, but
you're obviously too retarded to understand. Guess again!

But since you posted about me again, I'll just call you a brainless
cretin with the intellect of a gopher. I figure you want me to call
you a shortbus dumb****, or you wouldn't be stalking me. Theckma, the
dorkless doofus, I know you like being called names like that. It
enrages you, but you secretly love it, or you wouldn't be stalking me.

is it hard to drink your juice box and eat your cookie with that
retard hockey-helmet? Well tough ****, li'l buddy. It's there to
protect the other kids from being hit by that useless block of granite
on your neck. With the blank stare of a retard on the front, and small
deposit of horse **** inside instead of a brain.

CKWAFA. AOCASBDFRWAHH!

[None]

"None" > wrote in message
...
> < thekma @ ****4brains.com > wrote in message
> ...

Did you delete your post from gurgle groups? You're probably too
****ing stupid to know that your post went out to all the actual news
servers, and the whole world can read it. Just not the dim bulbs and
dumb ****s like you who think usenet is part of gurgle, and who think
deleting a post from gurgle groups makes it go away.

Nope. Now get back on the short bus!

WAFSBMYA. Right, li'l buddy?

[david gourley[_2_]]

"polymod" > said...news:dOIvy.39203$VC3.18403
@fx25.iad:

>
>
> "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message news:fCtvy.863910$Wj7.130798
@fx33.am4...
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Joe Walsh, looking kind of old, but sober. Sings good, plays guitar
good,
> seems to be getting on with what he does best.
> Which is being Joe Walsh.
>
> I like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Joe did some nice playing between segments of an NFL broadcast a couple
> years back.
> Just him with his axe and an amp, and it took the place of the standard
> music beds the league used.
>
> It was wonderful. Always liked his playing and it always amazed me how
> distinct his vocal diction was when he sang opposed to his speaking
voice.
> Same with Ozzy.
>
> Poly
>
>

He was really good when he was a guest this past year on "Live From Daryl's
House." It's probably on YouTube, highly recommended.

david

[JackA]

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 6:50:02 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 14/02/2016 7:28 AM, JackA wrote:
> > That simply isn't true. Fromy my hearing, man had little tools to
> > master with. It wasn't until DAW became a reality is when things
> > began to audio improve on CD. If what you feel is true, vinyl fans
> > would have never returned to it or even had it supllieda. As that
> > participant here mentioned, a profrsssor has to TEACH people what
> > good audio quality is. Even Hitler said, people do not know what is
> > good for them. And watching the Democratic party destroying America,
> > and the world, I can firmly believe it.
>
> Well clearly your hearing is as good as your typing.

Dingleberry, forgive my tiny phone keyboard. I see you can't spell either (in another thread). But, no, it give YOU ammo to attack since you have little else to offer.

>
> Many of those exact same tools are used today (sometimes exclusively) to
> master audio for CD or other digital results.

Yes, today, not yesterday. If I had a DAW and a fast computer about the late 80's, I know I could have easily gained a million $ with superior sound quality.
>
> Sure DAWs offer a lot more versatility, range, and amounts of control,
> but in the end it's the person doing the job who gets to choose what
> they want to use, if the end result pleases whoever is paying the
> bills...... maybe occasionally with exceptions. But they can turn down
> the job if they feel artistically compromised.

Very true, it's who's behind the keyboard that does make a difference. And, yes, you maybe be able to come close with analog electronics, but it would cost a small fortune. In the late 80's, people blindly put contents on CD. After, when they heard something, they jumped for joy, yelling, "Houston, we have noise!"

Jack

>
> geoff

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "Very true, it's who's behind the keyboard that does make a difference. And, yes, you maybe be able to come
close with analog electronics, but it would cost a small fortune. In the late 80's, people blindly put contents on CD. After, when
they heard something, they jumped for joy, yelling, "Houston, we have noise!" "


Come on, for Chrissake!

Those initial CDs didn't sound THAT awful! Sure, Vinyl
master tapes(with the bottom rolled off to varying
degrees) might have been the source, but seriously,
we're not talking Edison cylinders here.

[JackA]

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 11:16:46 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "Very true, it's who's behind the keyboard that does make a difference. And, yes, you maybe be able to come
> close with analog electronics, but it would cost a small fortune. In the late 80's, people blindly put contents on CD. After, when
> they heard something, they jumped for joy, yelling, "Houston, we have noise!" "
>
>
> Come on, for Chrissake!
>
> Those initial CDs didn't sound THAT awful! Sure, Vinyl
> master tapes(with the bottom rolled off to varying
> degrees) might have been the source, but seriously,
> we're not talking Edison cylinders here.

No, they weren't that awful, but a far cry competing with vinyl. At least I found on my own, it more or less had to do with a couple different Sony PCM machines. It seems most were concerned about distortion, and used conservative settings of those machines.

But, then there's an issue with bass and/or equalization. Seems most didn't have tools to do any correcting. I have to agree with Scott's phrase, "tape jockies", about all the were. No "real" engineers, just average Joes.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA: "But, then there's an issue with bass and/or equalization. Seems most didn't have tools to do any correcting. I
have to agree with Scott's phrase, "tape jockies", about all the were. No "real" engineers, just average Joes. "


What sort of correcting do you, JackA, suggest
might have been needed on those early analog
to digital to CD transfers? Conservative EQ
to restore bass lobbed off for transfer originally
to vinyl, left-to-right channel balance, or, something
else?

[geoff]

On 15/02/2016 5:30 PM, JackA wrote:
> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 11:16:46 PM UTC-5,
> wrote:
>> JackA wrote: "Very true, it's who's behind the keyboard that does
>> make a difference. And, yes, you maybe be able to come close with
>> analog electronics, but it would cost a small fortune. In the late
>> 80's, people blindly put contents on CD. After, when they heard
>> something, they jumped for joy, yelling, "Houston, we have noise!"
>> "
>>
>>
>> Come on, for Chrissake!
>>
>> Those initial CDs didn't sound THAT awful! Sure, Vinyl master
>> tapes(with the bottom rolled off to varying degrees) might have
>> been the source, but seriously, we're not talking Edison cylinders
>> here.

Many sounded (and sound) fantastic.

>
> No, they weren't that awful, but a far cry competing with vinyl. At
> least I found on my own, it more or less had to do with a couple
> different Sony PCM machines. It seems most were concerned about
> distortion, and used conservative settings of those machines.

No.

>
> But, then there's an issue with bass and/or equalization. Seems most
> didn't have tools to do any correcting. I have to agree with Scott's
> phrase, "tape jockies", about all the were. No "real" engineers, just
> average Joes.

Of course adequate tools existed - none of it is rocket-surgery ! The
problem was the rush to simply get stuff out asap.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 15/02/2016 05:03, wrote:
> JackA: "But, then there's an issue with bass and/or equalization. Seems most didn't have tools to do any correcting. I
> have to agree with Scott's phrase, "tape jockies", about all the were. No "real" engineers, just average Joes. "
>
>
> What sort of correcting do you, JackA, suggest
> might have been needed on those early analog
> to digital to CD transfers? Conservative EQ
> to restore bass lobbed off for transfer originally
> to vinyl, left-to-right channel balance, or, something
> else?
>
Going by the stuff he's posted here, a massive 3kHz boost.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 12:03:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA: "But, then there's an issue with bass and/or equalization. Seems most didn't have tools to do any correcting. I
> have to agree with Scott's phrase, "tape jockies", about all the were. No "real" engineers, just average Joes. "
>
>
> What sort of correcting do you, JackA, suggest
> might have been needed on those early analog
> to digital to CD transfers? Conservative EQ
> to restore bass lobbed off for transfer originally
> to vinyl, left-to-right channel balance, or, something
> else?

No, I'm doing the correcting on the audio they published.
Allow me to explain:

As found....
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thatsamore-o.mp3

MANY CDs were like this (above), shy of dynamics. Buy any (past) MCA Vintage Music CDs, even the "masters" when mastered by the audiophile, Steve Hoffman, they sounded ill, why they are so cheap.

Same song, but enhanced, even a touch of bass added, 1953 recording...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thatsamore.mp3

Any clearer to you yet?
Remember, it is YOU PEOPLE who claim the person "mastering" (back in its day) had a lot of audio work to do!

Jack

[JackA]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:14:27 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 15/02/2016 05:03, wrote:
> > JackA: "But, then there's an issue with bass and/or equalization. Seems most didn't have tools to do any correcting. I
> > have to agree with Scott's phrase, "tape jockies", about all the were. No "real" engineers, just average Joes. "
> >
> >
> > What sort of correcting do you, JackA, suggest
> > might have been needed on those early analog
> > to digital to CD transfers? Conservative EQ
> > to restore bass lobbed off for transfer originally
> > to vinyl, left-to-right channel balance, or, something
> > else?
> >
> Going by the stuff he's posted here, a massive 3kHz boost.

Ha!! Anther jealous usenet person. Join the gang.

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

[JackA]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 1:34:15 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 15/02/2016 5:30 PM, JackA wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 11:16:46 PM UTC-5,
> > wrote:
> >> JackA wrote: "Very true, it's who's behind the keyboard that does
> >> make a difference. And, yes, you maybe be able to come close with
> >> analog electronics, but it would cost a small fortune. In the late
> >> 80's, people blindly put contents on CD. After, when they heard
> >> something, they jumped for joy, yelling, "Houston, we have noise!"
> >> "
> >>
> >>
> >> Come on, for Chrissake!
> >>
> >> Those initial CDs didn't sound THAT awful! Sure, Vinyl master
> >> tapes(with the bottom rolled off to varying degrees) might have
> >> been the source, but seriously, we're not talking Edison cylinders
> >> here.
>
> Many sounded (and sound) fantastic.
>
> >
> > No, they weren't that awful, but a far cry competing with vinyl. At
> > least I found on my own, it more or less had to do with a couple
> > different Sony PCM machines. It seems most were concerned about
> > distortion, and used conservative settings of those machines.
>
> No.
>
> >
> > But, then there's an issue with bass and/or equalization. Seems most
> > didn't have tools to do any correcting. I have to agree with Scott's
> > phrase, "tape jockies", about all the were. No "real" engineers, just
> > average Joes.
>
> Of course adequate tools existed - none of it is rocket-surgery ! The
> problem was the rush to simply get stuff out asap.

Funny!!!

Jack

>
> geoff

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "MANY CDs were like this (above), shy of dynamics. Buy.."


The SOURCE was "shy of dynamics", not the CD
format. CD can take anything that's thrown at it -
a One Direction dial-tone, or a Chesky Records
compilation CD(something you should avail yourself
of so you can learn what a good recording sounds
like).

[JackA]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 9:14:44 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "MANY CDs were like this (above), shy of dynamics. Buy.."
>
>
> The SOURCE was "shy of dynamics", not the CD
> format.



I see. That's why EMI was quick to correct these "EMI Legendary Masters" series of CDs. That's why you can find Remaster after Remaster, because the source was the problem.

Let's get real!


CD can take anything that's thrown at it -
> a One Direction dial-tone, or a Chesky Records
> compilation CD(something you should avail yourself
> of so you can learn what a good recording sounds
> like).


As I feel, 15% of people KNOW decent sound quality.

Next!

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "That's why you can find Remaster after Remaster, because the source was the problem. "


No, you find "Remaster after Remaster" because it MAKES MONEY.
Learn!

[JackA]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 9:33:33 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "That's why you can find Remaster after Remaster, because the source was the problem. "
>
>
> No, you find "Remaster after Remaster" because it MAKES MONEY.
> Learn!

"Now mastering began to evolve into the digital state as we know it today. In the first half of 1995, MP3s began to spread on the Internet and their small file size set about revolution in the music industry that continues to this day. This meant that the mastering engineer had to become well versed in how to get the most from this format, something that took many mastering engineers years to get the hang of".

What that says is, you're wrong!

Jack

[JackA]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 1:34:15 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 15/02/2016 5:30 PM, JackA wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 11:16:46 PM UTC-5,
> > wrote:
> >> JackA wrote: "Very true, it's who's behind the keyboard that does
> >> make a difference. And, yes, you maybe be able to come close with
> >> analog electronics, but it would cost a small fortune. In the late
> >> 80's, people blindly put contents on CD. After, when they heard
> >> something, they jumped for joy, yelling, "Houston, we have noise!"
> >> "
> >>
> >>
> >> Come on, for Chrissake!
> >>
> >> Those initial CDs didn't sound THAT awful! Sure, Vinyl master
> >> tapes(with the bottom rolled off to varying degrees) might have
> >> been the source, but seriously, we're not talking Edison cylinders
> >> here.
>
> Many sounded (and sound) fantastic.
>
> >
> > No, they weren't that awful, but a far cry competing with vinyl. At
> > least I found on my own, it more or less had to do with a couple
> > different Sony PCM machines. It seems most were concerned about
> > distortion, and used conservative settings of those machines.
>
> No.

Yes....

"With the introduction of the CD in 1982, the cutting engineer was now finally known as a mastering engineer was forced into the digital age using a modified video tape recorder called the Sony 1630 to deliver a digital CD master to the replicator, but still utilizing many of the analog tools from the vinyl past from EQ and compression. The 1989 introduction of the Sonic Solutions Digital Audio Workstation with pre-mastering software provided a CD master instead of a bulky 1630".

Jack
>
> >
> > But, then there's an issue with bass and/or equalization. Seems most
> > didn't have tools to do any correcting. I have to agree with Scott's
> > phrase, "tape jockies", about all the were. No "real" engineers, just
> > average Joes.
>
> Of course adequate tools existed - none of it is rocket-surgery ! The
> problem was the rush to simply get stuff out asap.
>
> geoff

[John Williamson]

On 15/02/2016 14:48, JackA wrote:
> "Now mastering began to evolve into the digital state as we know it today. In the first half of 1995, MP3s began to spread on the Internet and their small file size set about revolution in the music industry that continues to this day. This meant that the mastering engineer had to become well versed in how to get the most from this format, something that took many mastering engineers years to get the hang of".
>
> What that says is, you're wrong!
>
No, what that says is that mp3 is a lossy format that requires care when
mastering to live within its limitations, just as vinyl and analogue
tape do.

If I want a CD to sound exactly the same as vinyl or analogue tape, all
I need is a decent playback machine and a good ADC. The result will
sound exactly the same as the original. If I use minimal processing for
removal of hiss, clicks, tape flutter and turntable rumble from a good
quality master, it can sound better, but it will never sound as accurate
as a purely digital recording.

If I want an mp3 to sound as good as a vinyl disc, then I need to get
very clever with the mp3 encoder parameters and other mastering
processes to get the best sound possible. 128kbps mp3 was originally
meant to be about the same apparent quality as cassette tape on spoken
word recordings. As time has gone on and storage has got cheaper, very
good results are possible using 320kbps files. Better results at the
same bit rate can be got using other types of perceptual encoding, but
then you get compatibility problems with consumer playback equipment,
which almost all has mp3 decoding hard coded, and some of which can't
even handle a .wav file.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:07:31 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 15/02/2016 14:48, JackA wrote:
> > "Now mastering began to evolve into the digital state as we know it today. In the first half of 1995, MP3s began to spread on the Internet and their small file size set about revolution in the music industry that continues to this day. This meant that the mastering engineer had to become well versed in how to get the most from this format, something that took many mastering engineers years to get the hang of".
> >
> > What that says is, you're wrong!
> >
> No, what that says is that mp3 is a lossy format that requires care when
> mastering to live within its limitations, just as vinyl and analogue
> tape do.

I feel they mean a digital format.

>
> If I want a CD to sound exactly the same as vinyl or analogue tape, all
> I need is a decent playback machine and a good ADC. The result will
> sound exactly the same as the original. If I use minimal processing for
> removal of hiss, clicks, tape flutter and turntable rumble from a good
> quality master, it can sound better, but it will never sound as accurate
> as a purely digital recording.
>
> If I want an mp3 to sound as good as a vinyl disc, then I need to get
> very clever with the mp3 encoder parameters and other mastering
> processes to get the best sound possible. 128kbps mp3 was originally
> meant to be about the same apparent quality as cassette tape on spoken
> word recordings. As time has gone on and storage has got cheaper, very
> good results are possible using 320kbps files. Better results at the
> same bit rate can be got using other types of perceptual encoding, but
> then you get compatibility problems with consumer playback equipment,
> which almost all has mp3 decoding hard coded, and some of which can't
> even handle a .wav file.

Knowing HOW slow it took to make a 128kbps MP3, I say that was the primary cause of this 128k bitrate.

You say Vocals, this person can't hear much difference!...
http://forums.winamp.com/archive/index.php/t-229919.html

I opted 160k, because it's tough to notice much difference, even 320k!

I don't believe your ears or my ears can detect minor amounts of distortion..

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

[John Williamson]

On 15/02/2016 15:41, JackA wrote:
> On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:07:31 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> Knowing HOW slow it took to make a 128kbps MP3, I say that was the primary cause of this 128k bitrate.
>
At the time, it was the best compromise available between quality and
transmission bitrate, as the Fraunhofer coding was originally developed
for phone companies to use on their (Then cutting edge) systems. At the
time, it was the highest bitrate that could be converted in real time,
if I remember correctly.

> You say Vocals, this person can't hear much difference!...
> http://forums.winamp.com/archive/index.php/t-229919.html
>
> I opted 160k, because it's tough to notice much difference, even 320k!
>
> I don't believe your ears or my ears can detect minor amounts of distortion.
>
I can tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and CD playback with close
to 100% accuracy, even on a laptop using decent headphones. So can a
number of people I've tried the experiment on. 160kbps stands out like a
very sore thumb in this context.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

John Williamson wrote:
> On 15/02/2016 15:41, JackA wrote:
>> On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:07:31 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
>> Knowing HOW slow it took to make a 128kbps MP3, I say that was the
>> primary cause of this 128k bitrate.
>>
> At the time, it was the best compromise available between quality and
> transmission bitrate, as the Fraunhofer coding was originally developed
> for phone companies to use on their (Then cutting edge) systems. At the
> time, it was the highest bitrate that could be converted in real time,
> if I remember correctly.
>
>> You say Vocals, this person can't hear much difference!...
>> http://forums.winamp.com/archive/index.php/t-229919.html
>>
>> I opted 160k, because it's tough to notice much difference, even 320k!
>>
>> I don't believe your ears or my ears can detect minor amounts of
>> distortion.
>>
> I can tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and CD playback with close
> to 100% accuracy, even on a laptop using decent headphones.


I find that reasonably hard to believe.

> So can a
> number of people I've tried the experiment on.

This too. Are you sure you're doing all the experimental cue control
properly? No Clever Hans effect*?

*where people get tells from how the experiment is carried out.



> 160kbps stands out like a
> very sore thumb in this context.
>
>

It's certainly different.

--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 16/02/2016 3:20 AM, JackA wrote:

>
>
> As I feel, 15% of people KNOW decent sound quality.

Get something decent to listen on, and maybe even you too can approach
being one of those 15%.

geoff

[geoff]

On 16/02/2016 4:41 AM, JackA wrote:

>
> Knowing HOW slow it took to make a 128kbps MP3, I say that was the
> primary cause of this 128k bitrate.
>

Slow ? A typical song should take far less than a minute. Even 10 years ago.

>
> I don't believe your ears or my ears can detect minor amounts of
> distortion.

Especially on playback equipment that masks it.

But can far more easily detect missing detail, frequencies (esp upper
mid and high) , and bizarre 'phasing' effects.

geoff

[geoff]

On 16/02/2016 2:28 AM, JackA wrote:

>>
>> Of course adequate tools existed - none of it is rocket-surgery ! The
>> problem was the rush to simply get stuff out asap.
>
> Funny!!!


No, absolutely the case.


geoff

[geoff]

On 16/02/2016 3:59 AM, JackA wrote:

>>> No, they weren't that awful, but a far cry competing with vinyl.
>>> At least I found on my own, it more or less had to do with a
>>> couple different Sony PCM machines. It seems most were concerned
>>> about distortion, and used conservative settings of those
>>> machines.
>>
>> No.
>
> Yes....
>
> "With the introduction of the CD in 1982, the cutting engineer was
> now finally known as a mastering engineer was forced into the digital
> age using a modified video tape recorder called the Sony 1630 to
> deliver a digital CD master to the replicator, but still utilizing
> many of the analog tools from the vinyl past from EQ and compression.
> The 1989 introduction of the Sonic Solutions Digital Audio
> Workstation with pre-mastering software provided a CD master instead
> of a bulky 1630".

So what's this 'Conservative settings' ?

geoff

[JackA]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 11:42:04 AM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:
> John Williamson wrote:
> > On 15/02/2016 15:41, JackA wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:07:31 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> >> Knowing HOW slow it took to make a 128kbps MP3, I say that was the
> >> primary cause of this 128k bitrate.
> >>
> > At the time, it was the best compromise available between quality and
> > transmission bitrate, as the Fraunhofer coding was originally developed
> > for phone companies to use on their (Then cutting edge) systems. At the
> > time, it was the highest bitrate that could be converted in real time,
> > if I remember correctly.
> >
> >> You say Vocals, this person can't hear much difference!...
> >> http://forums.winamp.com/archive/index.php/t-229919.html
> >>
> >> I opted 160k, because it's tough to notice much difference, even 320k!
> >>
> >> I don't believe your ears or my ears can detect minor amounts of
> >> distortion.
> >>
> > I can tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and CD playback with close
> > to 100% accuracy, even on a laptop using decent headphones.
>
>
> I find that reasonably hard to believe.

- SHAME WE CAN'T TEST HIM.

Jack

>
> > So can a
> > number of people I've tried the experiment on.
>
> This too. Are you sure you're doing all the experimental cue control
> properly? No Clever Hans effect*?
>
> *where people get tells from how the experiment is carried out.
>
>
>
> > 160kbps stands out like a
> > very sore thumb in this context.
> >
> >
>
> It's certainly different.
>
> --
> Les Cargill

[[email protected]]

geoff asked: "So what's this 'Conservative settings' ? "

Never peaking above -6dBfs? I own
a few CDs like that. Whole thing
was recorded at insanely low levels.

[JackA]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 1:58:07 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 16/02/2016 4:41 AM, JackA wrote:
>
> >
> > Knowing HOW slow it took to make a 128kbps MP3, I say that was the
> > primary cause of this 128k bitrate.
> >
>
> Slow ? A typical song should take far less than a minute. Even 10 years ago.

You weren't even around when MP3 hit the scene. Most all of us didn't know.
I'm talking Win 95 days and a DOS encoder, took FOREVER to encode a single song. Maybe a 120MHz CPU!

>
> >
> > I don't believe your ears or my ears can detect minor amounts of
> > distortion.
>
> Especially on playback equipment that masks it.

Fidelity varies all over them place, let's not go there.

>
> But can far more easily detect missing detail, frequencies (esp upper
> mid and high) , and bizarre 'phasing' effects.

Now, way back in Napster peer-peer days, I generally settled for 160k MP3s minimum. But, there was a 96k MP3 that sounded better than most higher bit rate MP3s will sound. Why I claim mastering quality has a LOT to do with MP3 sound.

Jack
>
> geoff

[JackA]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:50:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> geoff asked: "So what's this 'Conservative settings' ? "
>
> Never peaking above -6dBfs? I own
> a few CDs like that. Whole thing
> was recorded at insanely low levels.

A good CD for you, UK, The Pure Sound Of Elton John!! Mixed w/o any enhancements. I found it ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ -L- boring.

Jack

[John Williamson]

On 15/02/2016 16:49, Les Cargill wrote:
> John Williamson wrote:

>> So can a
>> number of people I've tried the experiment on.
>
> This too. Are you sure you're doing all the experimental cue control
> properly? No Clever Hans effect*?
>
One of them was trying to tell me that mp3 sounded better until I did an
A/B switch using a live performance that I had recorded and converted
myself, then he changed his tune. The only difference in the playback
chain was the decoder software, so there was no level fudging to give a
false impression, and the conversion was set for the highest quality I
could manage at 320kbps.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 16/02/2016 3:59 AM, JackA wrote:
>>
>> "With the introduction of the CD in 1982, the cutting engineer was
>> now finally known as a mastering engineer was forced into the digital
>> age using a modified video tape recorder called the Sony 1630 to
>> deliver a digital CD master to the replicator, but still utilizing
>> many of the analog tools from the vinyl past from EQ and compression.
>> The 1989 introduction of the Sonic Solutions Digital Audio
>> Workstation with pre-mastering software provided a CD master instead
>> of a bulky 1630".
>
>So what's this 'Conservative settings' ?

That's also not really correct. The 1630 is the box that sits in front of
the video recorder, it's not the recorder itself. And the 1630 was preceded
by the 1610. And Sony DID offer a very horrible and clumsy editing system
using those machines.

When the Sonic system came out, it was mostly being used for editing digital
data which would then be dumped back through a 1630 machine to ship to the
pressing plant. This got more or less replaced with DDP files on Exabyte
and then PMCDs came a few years later. The PMCD didn't come around until
Kodak finally got a reliable CD-R machine.

But... NONE of this equipment, save occasionally the Sonic workstation, was
ever really used for processing. Throughout this whole evolution, everyone
kept using their analogue processing chains. Most mastering rooms still do.

So none of this statement really has anything at all to do with any processing
that might be done in the mastering room.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
> wrote:
>geoff asked: "So what's this 'Conservative settings' ? "
>
>Never peaking above -6dBfs? I own
>a few CDs like that. Whole thing
>was recorded at insanely low levels.

You don't get it, do you?
I suspect you never will.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 16/02/2016 8:52 a.m., JackA wrote:
> > You weren't even around when MP3 hit the scene.

Que ?!!!

geoff

[geoff]

On 16/02/2016 8:50 a.m., wrote:
> geoff asked: "So what's this 'Conservative settings' ? " > > Never peaking above -6dBfs? I own a few CDs like that. Whole
thing > was recorded at insanely low levels.

That would be likely to make distortion *worse* than peaking higher.
Maybe not on a 1630, but I have no experience of those. And you sure as
hell don't.

And the recorded level has little to do with the level on a CD.

geoff

[JackA]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:01:43 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 16/02/2016 3:59 AM, JackA wrote:
>
> >>> No, they weren't that awful, but a far cry competing with vinyl.
> >>> At least I found on my own, it more or less had to do with a
> >>> couple different Sony PCM machines. It seems most were concerned
> >>> about distortion, and used conservative settings of those
> >>> machines.
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> > Yes....
> >
> > "With the introduction of the CD in 1982, the cutting engineer was
> > now finally known as a mastering engineer was forced into the digital
> > age using a modified video tape recorder called the Sony 1630 to
> > deliver a digital CD master to the replicator, but still utilizing
> > many of the analog tools from the vinyl past from EQ and compression.
> > The 1989 introduction of the Sonic Solutions Digital Audio
> > Workstation with pre-mastering software provided a CD master instead
> > of a bulky 1630".
>
> So what's this 'Conservative settings' ?

I posted the link before, have to find it, from someone who was in the (re)mastering business!!

Jack

>
> geoff

[JackA]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:01:43 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 16/02/2016 3:59 AM, JackA wrote:
>
> >>> No, they weren't that awful, but a far cry competing with vinyl.
> >>> At least I found on my own, it more or less had to do with a
> >>> couple different Sony PCM machines. It seems most were concerned
> >>> about distortion, and used conservative settings of those
> >>> machines.
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> > Yes....
> >
> > "With the introduction of the CD in 1982, the cutting engineer was
> > now finally known as a mastering engineer was forced into the digital
> > age using a modified video tape recorder called the Sony 1630 to
> > deliver a digital CD master to the replicator, but still utilizing
> > many of the analog tools from the vinyl past from EQ and compression.
> > The 1989 introduction of the Sonic Solutions Digital Audio
> > Workstation with pre-mastering software provided a CD master instead
> > of a bulky 1630".
>
> So what's this 'Conservative settings' ?


They referred to the louder as a "hot" mix. Even Sony claimed a few bits lost out of 65+k wouldn't be noticed. Assume this is what Bill Inglot of Rhino Records did (hot mix), though he claimed he just adjusted the tape azimuth better! :)

Jack
>
> geoff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

John Williamson wrote:
> On 15/02/2016 16:49, Les Cargill wrote:
>> John Williamson wrote:
>
>>> So can a
>>> number of people I've tried the experiment on.
>>
>> This too. Are you sure you're doing all the experimental cue control
>> properly? No Clever Hans effect*?
>>
> One of them was trying to tell me that mp3 sounded better until I did an
> A/B switch using a live performance that I had recorded and converted
> myself, then he changed his tune. The only difference in the playback
> chain was the decoder software, so there was no level fudging to give a
> false impression, and the conversion was set for the highest quality I
> could manage at 320kbps.
>
>


Interesting - I suspect the material I've compared just does not show up
the differences.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>John Williamson wrote:
>> On 15/02/2016 16:49, Les Cargill wrote:
>>> John Williamson wrote:
>>
>>>> So can a
>>>> number of people I've tried the experiment on.
>>>
>>> This too. Are you sure you're doing all the experimental cue control
>>> properly? No Clever Hans effect*?
>>>
>> One of them was trying to tell me that mp3 sounded better until I did an
>> A/B switch using a live performance that I had recorded and converted
>> myself, then he changed his tune. The only difference in the playback
>> chain was the decoder software, so there was no level fudging to give a
>> false impression, and the conversion was set for the highest quality I
>> could manage at 320kbps.
>
>Interesting - I suspect the material I've compared just does not show up
>the differences.

It seems like the most clear effects are on transients. Fiddles and
harpsichords show the difference up much more obviously, and a sparse
arrangement where the transients can be heard in isolation can make it
that much more clear.

Also anything that has real stereo imaging with phase differences at
lower frequencies seems to get horribly mucked up. Intensity "stereo"
seems to survive the process pretty well.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 16/02/2016 12:07 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
> It seems like the most clear effects are on transients. Fiddles and
> harpsichords show the difference up much more obviously, and a sparse
> arrangement where the transients can be heard in isolation can make it
> that much more clear. Also anything that has real stereo imaging with
> phase differences at lower frequencies seems to get horribly mucked
> up. Intensity "stereo" seems to survive the process pretty well. --scott

Quite handy that a delicately played 6-steel-string acoustic guitar can
get turned into a 12-string-though-a-phasor though ;-)

geoff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>> John Williamson wrote:
>>> On 15/02/2016 16:49, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>> John Williamson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So can a
>>>>> number of people I've tried the experiment on.
>>>>
>>>> This too. Are you sure you're doing all the experimental cue control
>>>> properly? No Clever Hans effect*?
>>>>
>>> One of them was trying to tell me that mp3 sounded better until I did an
>>> A/B switch using a live performance that I had recorded and converted
>>> myself, then he changed his tune. The only difference in the playback
>>> chain was the decoder software, so there was no level fudging to give a
>>> false impression, and the conversion was set for the highest quality I
>>> could manage at 320kbps.
>>
>> Interesting - I suspect the material I've compared just does not show up
>> the differences.
>
> It seems like the most clear effects are on transients. Fiddles and
> harpsichords show the difference up much more obviously, and a sparse
> arrangement where the transients can be heard in isolation can make it
> that much more clear.
>
> Also anything that has real stereo imaging with phase differences at
> lower frequencies seems to get horribly mucked up. Intensity "stereo"
> seems to survive the process pretty well.
> --scott
>


I just need to do the experiment again.

--
Les Cargill