View Full Version : Word Usage Related to this Field
Word Usage Related To this Field
(I found the results for "8-track" to be a
little odd.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=phonograph+record%2Creel-to-reel%2C8-track+tape%2Ccassette+tape%2Ccompact+disc%2Cmp3&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cphonograph%20record%3B%2Cc0%3B. t1%3B%2Creel%20-%20to%20-%20reel%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C8%20-%20track%20tape%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccassette%20tape %3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccompact%20disc%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3 B%2Cmp3%3B%2Cc0
Graph:
<iframe name="ngram_chart" src="https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=phonograph+record%2Creel-to-reel%2C8-track+tape%2Ccassette+tape%2Ccompact+disc%2Cmp3&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cphonograph%20record%3B%2Cc0%3B. t1%3B%2Creel%20-%20to%20-%20reel%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C8%20-%20track%20tape%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccassette%20tape %3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccompact%20disc%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3 B%2Cmp3%3B%2Cc0" width=900 height=500 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0 hspace=0 vspace=0 frameborder=0 scrolling=no></iframe>
John Williamson
April 17th 16, 03:06 PM
On 17/04/2016 13:49, wrote:
> Word Usage Related To this Field
>
> (I found the results for "8-track" to be a
> little odd.
>
> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=phonograph+record%2Creel-to-reel%2C8-track+tape%2Ccassette+tape%2Ccompact+disc%2Cmp3&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cphonograph%20record%3B%2Cc0%3B. t1%3B%2Creel%20-%20to%20-%20reel%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C8%20-%20track%20tape%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccassette%20tape %3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccompact%20disc%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3 B%2Cmp3%3B%2Cc0
>
Not really, 8 track cartridges were not very popular, except with some
car makers who were talked into fitting them as standard. The cartridges
are unreliable and large, compared with a Compact Cassette, and the
audio quality is not much better, if at all, in spite of the higher tape
speed.
Broadcasters used a similar cartridge for jingles and short programme
inserts, but that only had 2 tracks and a cue marker, with a minute or
two of tape in it.
8 track when it's referred to in here, though, is likely to be to a
completely different format, which is normally 1/2" or wider tape
running at 7.5" per second or faster, with 8 tracks available for
recording or playback. The domestic cartridge had 8 tracks on 1/4" tape,
played back 2 at a time by a moving head block, which often used to
change its alignment not only between cartridges, but each time the tape
loop recycled itself or changed to a new pair of tracks. 'Orrible, they
were....
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
geoff
April 17th 16, 11:45 PM
On 18/04/2016 2:06 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
>
>
> 8 track when it's referred to in here, though, is likely to be to a
> completely different format, which is normally 1/2" or wider tape
> running at 7.5" per second or faster, with 8 tracks available for
> recording or playback. T
Or in latter days of 8-track's popularity, on 1/4" tape. In semi-pro or
enthusiastic-amateur sphere at least. Ah, my old Tascam 388 in the '80s....
geoff
Trevor
April 18th 16, 04:16 AM
On 18/04/2016 8:45 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 18/04/2016 2:06 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
>> 8 track when it's referred to in here, though, is likely to be to a
>> completely different format, which is normally 1/2" or wider tape
>> running at 7.5" per second or faster, with 8 tracks available for
>> recording or playback. T
>
>
> Or in latter days of 8-track's popularity, on 1/4" tape. In semi-pro or
> enthusiastic-amateur sphere at least. Ah, my old Tascam 388 in the '80s....
Or worse still, 8 track porta pro cassette decks using 1/8" compact
cassettes at either 1 7/8ips or sometimes 3 3/4ips.
Thank god we no longer have to put up with that!
Trevor.
John Williamson
April 18th 16, 09:53 AM
On 18/04/2016 04:16, Trevor wrote:
> On 18/04/2016 8:45 AM, geoff wrote:
>> On 18/04/2016 2:06 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
>>> 8 track when it's referred to in here, though, is likely to be to a
>>> completely different format, which is normally 1/2" or wider tape
>>> running at 7.5" per second or faster, with 8 tracks available for
>>> recording or playback. T
>>
>>
>> Or in latter days of 8-track's popularity, on 1/4" tape. In semi-pro or
>> enthusiastic-amateur sphere at least. Ah, my old Tascam 388 in the
>> '80s....
>
> Or worse still, 8 track porta pro cassette decks using 1/8" compact
> cassettes at either 1 7/8ips or sometimes 3 3/4ips.
> Thank god we no longer have to put up with that!
>
Indeed. Give me a nice big SD card every time. Until it falls out
through the hole in my pocket...
Multitrack on a Minidisc seemed like a good idea. Big enough to not
lose, but small enough to be handy.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Trevor
April 18th 16, 10:01 AM
On 18/04/2016 6:53 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 18/04/2016 04:16, Trevor wrote:
>> On 18/04/2016 8:45 AM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 18/04/2016 2:06 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
>>>> 8 track when it's referred to in here, though, is likely to be to a
>>>> completely different format, which is normally 1/2" or wider tape
>>>> running at 7.5" per second or faster, with 8 tracks available for
>>>> recording or playback. T
>>>
>>>
>>> Or in latter days of 8-track's popularity, on 1/4" tape. In semi-pro or
>>> enthusiastic-amateur sphere at least. Ah, my old Tascam 388 in the
>>> '80s....
>>
>> Or worse still, 8 track porta pro cassette decks using 1/8" compact
>> cassettes at either 1 7/8ips or sometimes 3 3/4ips.
>> Thank god we no longer have to put up with that!
>>
> Indeed. Give me a nice big SD card every time. Until it falls out
> through the hole in my pocket...
>
> Multitrack on a Minidisc seemed like a good idea. Big enough to not
> lose, but small enough to be handy.
Hell no. Wasn't even interested in recording stereo on a minidisk, and
certainly wouldn't bother with recording compressed multi-track.
Thankfully we have had good 16bit+ uncompressed portable multi-tracks
for a long time now.
Trevor.
geoff
April 18th 16, 11:47 AM
On 18/04/2016 9:01 PM, Trevor wrote:
>
>
> Hell no. Wasn't even interested in recording stereo on a minidisk, and
> certainly wouldn't bother with recording compressed multi-track.
> Thankfully we have had good 16bit+ uncompressed portable multi-tracks
> for a long time now.
Who does 16 bits any more ?!!!
geoff
Scott Dorsey
April 18th 16, 02:01 PM
In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 18/04/2016 8:45 AM, geoff wrote:
>> On 18/04/2016 2:06 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
>>> 8 track when it's referred to in here, though, is likely to be to a
>>> completely different format, which is normally 1/2" or wider tape
>>> running at 7.5" per second or faster, with 8 tracks available for
>>> recording or playback. T
>>
>> Or in latter days of 8-track's popularity, on 1/4" tape. In semi-pro or
>> enthusiastic-amateur sphere at least. Ah, my old Tascam 388 in the '80s....
>
>Or worse still, 8 track porta pro cassette decks using 1/8" compact
>cassettes at either 1 7/8ips or sometimes 3 3/4ips.
>Thank god we no longer have to put up with that!
Yeah, if someone says "recorded on 8-track" my assumption is normal 1" 8-track
which was the standard for years, not "Tascam-style" narrowtrack 1/2 or some
other horror.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Folks:
The source for those Ngrams is the frequency
of appearance of the terms I selected in literature,
not as they were employed in everyday speech
on the sidewalk. That might explain the relative
lack of mention of consumer 8-track cartridges,
compared to the ups and downs of the other
audio formats I listed.
JackA
April 18th 16, 02:37 PM
On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 8:49:40 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Word Usage Related To this Field
>
> (I found the results for "8-track" to be a
> little odd.
>
> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=phonograph+record%2Creel-to-reel%2C8-track+tape%2Ccassette+tape%2Ccompact+disc%2Cmp3&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cphonograph%20record%3B%2Cc0%3B. t1%3B%2Creel%20-%20to%20-%20reel%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C8%20-%20track%20tape%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccassette%20tape %3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccompact%20disc%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3 B%2Cmp3%3B%2Cc0
>
>
> Graph:
>
> <iframe name="ngram_chart" src="https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=phonograph+record%2Creel-to-reel%2C8-track+tape%2Ccassette+tape%2Ccompact+disc%2Cmp3&year_start=1700&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cphonograph%20record%3B%2Cc0%3B. t1%3B%2Creel%20-%20to%20-%20reel%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C8%20-%20track%20tape%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccassette%20tape %3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccompact%20disc%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3 B%2Cmp3%3B%2Cc0" width=900 height=500 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0 hspace=0 vspace=0 frameborder=0 scrolling=no></iframe>
Yo, where's the 4 Track cartridge? Obviously, someone doesn't know about them. Had one, car unit, given to me, lucky to find a few *new* 4 Track cartridges.
Jack
Mike Rivers[_2_]
April 18th 16, 03:26 PM
On 4/17/2016 8:49 AM, wrote:
> Word Usage Related To this Field
I wish news programs would quit saying "tape," as in "Here's some tape
from our live interview."
I would also like to stop seeing the use of "vinyl" as a substitute for
"phonograph record." Although I'll admit that the musical value of many
records these days is barely distinguishable from that of vinyl
automobile seat covers.
--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
Les Cargill[_4_]
April 19th 16, 01:37 AM
Trevor wrote:
> On 18/04/2016 8:45 AM, geoff wrote:
>> On 18/04/2016 2:06 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
>>> 8 track when it's referred to in here, though, is likely to be to a
>>> completely different format, which is normally 1/2" or wider tape
>>> running at 7.5" per second or faster, with 8 tracks available for
>>> recording or playback. T
>>
>>
>> Or in latter days of 8-track's popularity, on 1/4" tape. In semi-pro or
>> enthusiastic-amateur sphere at least. Ah, my old Tascam 388 in the
>> '80s....
>
> Or worse still, 8 track porta pro cassette decks using 1/8" compact
> cassettes at either 1 7/8ips or sometimes 3 3/4ips.
> Thank god we no longer have to put up with that!
>
> Trevor.
>
>
I dunno - with dbx it mangled drums nicely. Given the physical
limitations of the format, it's amazing it worked at all.
--
Les Cargill
Trevor
April 19th 16, 03:36 AM
On 19/04/2016 10:37 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
> Trevor wrote:
>> On 18/04/2016 8:45 AM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 18/04/2016 2:06 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
>>>> 8 track when it's referred to in here, though, is likely to be to a
>>>> completely different format, which is normally 1/2" or wider tape
>>>> running at 7.5" per second or faster, with 8 tracks available for
>>>> recording or playback. T
>>>
>>>
>>> Or in latter days of 8-track's popularity, on 1/4" tape. In semi-pro or
>>> enthusiastic-amateur sphere at least. Ah, my old Tascam 388 in the
>>> '80s....
>>
>> Or worse still, 8 track porta pro cassette decks using 1/8" compact
>> cassettes at either 1 7/8ips or sometimes 3 3/4ips.
>> Thank god we no longer have to put up with that!
>>
>
> I dunno - with dbx it mangled drums nicely. Given the physical
> limitations of the format, it's amazing it worked at all.
Right, but "worked" is a very subjective opinion in this case!
(as is "mangled drums nicely" of course)
Trevor.
Andre Majorel
April 20th 16, 08:49 AM
On 2016-04-18, Trevor > wrote:
> Or worse still, 8 track porta pro cassette decks using 1/8" compact
> cassettes at either 1 7/8ips or sometimes 3 3/4ips.
Tascam 238 Syncaset.
> Thank god we no longer have to put up with that!
I had one and was very happy with it. It had half the track
width of regular cassettes but sounded better. Running at 9.5
cm/s and using type II tape must have helped.
You may view it as an audio abomination but it served me very
well and the tape cost was around 1/50th of what it would have
been with a "proper" tape recorder. Who can afford to pay half a
day's wage for three and a half minutes of tape ? Not me. :-)
--
André Majorel http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/
J'ai des vrais problèmes, vous avez des faux problèmes.
Trevor
April 20th 16, 01:15 PM
On 20/04/2016 5:49 PM, Andre Majorel wrote:
> On 2016-04-18, Trevor > wrote:
>
>> Or worse still, 8 track porta pro cassette decks using 1/8" compact
>> cassettes at either 1 7/8ips or sometimes 3 3/4ips.
>
> Tascam 238 Syncaset.
>
>> Thank god we no longer have to put up with that!
>
> I had one and was very happy with it. It had half the track
> width of regular cassettes but sounded better.
Damned with faint praise indeed!
>
> You may view it as an audio abomination
Yep.
> but it served me very well and the tape cost was around 1/50th
> of what it would have been with a "proper" tape recorder.
> Who can afford to pay half a day's wage for three and a half
> minutes of tape ? Not me. :-)
Isn't it nice you can now record 24 tracks digital at far higher quality
than 2" tape and for a few dollars in media cost, and a miniscule
percentage of the deck cost.
And 8 tracks of real quality for less than that sad 238 even! :-)
Trevor.
JackA
April 20th 16, 03:45 PM
On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 3:49:47 AM UTC-4, Andre Majorel wrote:
> On 2016-04-18, Trevor > wrote:
>
> > Or worse still, 8 track porta pro cassette decks using 1/8" compact
> > cassettes at either 1 7/8ips or sometimes 3 3/4ips.
>
> Tascam 238 Syncaset.
>
> > Thank god we no longer have to put up with that!
>
> I had one and was very happy with it. It had half the track
> width of regular cassettes but sounded better. Running at 9.5
> cm/s and using type II tape must have helped.
I prefered Sony Metal Tape, Type 4...
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Metal-Xr-Minute-Audiocassette/dp/B0079KBBWA
Remember those indents they had on the plastic case to detect Dolby encoding?!
Jack
>
> You may view it as an audio abomination but it served me very
> well and the tape cost was around 1/50th of what it would have
> been with a "proper" tape recorder. Who can afford to pay half a
> day's wage for three and a half minutes of tape ? Not me. :-)
>
> --
> André Majorel http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/
> J'ai des vrais problèmes, vous avez des faux problèmes.
Andre Majorel
April 20th 16, 10:06 PM
On 2016-04-20, Trevor > wrote:
> On 20/04/2016 5:49 PM, Andre Majorel wrote:
>
>> I had one and was very happy with [the Tascam 238]. It had
>> half the track width of regular cassettes but sounded better.
>
> Damned with faint praise indeed!
I knew you'd say something like that. :-)
>> You may view it as an audio abomination
>
> Yep.
>
>> but it served me very well and the tape cost was around 1/50th
> > of what it would have been with a "proper" tape recorder.
> > Who can afford to pay half a day's wage for three and a half
> > minutes of tape ? Not me. :-)
>
> Isn't it nice you can now record 24 tracks digital at far
> higher quality than 2" tape and for a few dollars in media
> cost, and a miniscule percentage of the deck cost.
> And 8 tracks of real quality for less than that sad 238 even! :-)
It is nice, though I miss the 14-button interface of the 238.
But, you know, if I made a list of things I'd like to change
about it, sound quality would be pretty far down.
I would like to agree with you and go self-flagellate in penance
for having ever liked that heap of ****. But the truth is that
it sounded good enough for me.
--
André Majorel http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/
J'ai des vrais problèmes, vous avez des faux problèmes.
John Williamson
April 20th 16, 10:30 PM
On 20/04/2016 15:45, JackA wrote:
> I prefered Sony Metal Tape, Type 4...
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Metal-Xr-Minute-Audiocassette/dp/B0079KBBWA
>
> Remember those indents they had on the plastic case to detect Dolby encoding?!
>
No. because the notches were there to disable recording by removong the
tab, indicating type II (Chromium dioxide based tape) for those
recorders and players that could detect the nothch and type 4 (Metal
based tape) respectively. The standard did not allow for a notch to
indicate Dolby encoding.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
JackA
April 20th 16, 11:51 PM
On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 5:30:26 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 20/04/2016 15:45, JackA wrote:
>
> > I prefered Sony Metal Tape, Type 4...
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Metal-Xr-Minute-Audiocassette/dp/B0079KBBWA
> >
> > Remember those indents they had on the plastic case to detect Dolby encoding?!
> >
> No. because the notches were there to disable recording by removong the
> tab, indicating type II (Chromium dioxide based tape) for those
> recorders and players that could detect the nothch and type 4 (Metal
> based tape) respectively. The standard did not allow for a notch to
> indicate Dolby encoding.
Why they became obsolete; not enough forethought planning!! :-)
Jack
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.
Trevor
April 21st 16, 07:44 AM
On 21/04/2016 7:06 AM, Andre Majorel wrote:
> On 2016-04-20, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 20/04/2016 5:49 PM, Andre Majorel wrote:
>>
>>> I had one and was very happy with [the Tascam 238]. It had
>>> half the track width of regular cassettes but sounded better.
>>
>> Damned with faint praise indeed!
>
> I knew you'd say something like that. :-)
>
>>> You may view it as an audio abomination
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>> but it served me very well and the tape cost was around 1/50th
>>> of what it would have been with a "proper" tape recorder.
>>> Who can afford to pay half a day's wage for three and a half
>>> minutes of tape ? Not me. :-)
>>
>> Isn't it nice you can now record 24 tracks digital at far
>> higher quality than 2" tape and for a few dollars in media
>> cost, and a miniscule percentage of the deck cost.
>> And 8 tracks of real quality for less than that sad 238 even! :-)
>
> It is nice, though I miss the 14-button interface of the 238.
> But, you know, if I made a list of things I'd like to change
> about it, sound quality would be pretty far down.
>
> I would like to agree with you and go self-flagellate in penance
> for having ever liked that heap of ****. But the truth is that
> it sounded good enough for me.
Which is all that matters to you of course, but I don't see the point of
a low quality 8 track myself. If all I needed Low-Fi, stereo was
adequate, and if I needed multi-track for real recordings, Low-Fi was
pointless to me.
Actually the ONLY cassettes I ever played were in the car, or on a
walkman. Even for my personal vinyl recordings at home I used a R2R.
Trevor.
Scott Dorsey wrote: "Yeah, if someone says "recorded on 8-track" my assumption is normal 1" 8-track
which was the standard for years, not "Tascam-style" narrowtrack 1/2 or some "
Maybe not among a production newsgroup, but
for the 99-Percent(my peeps) "8-track" certainly
meant the low-fi consumer cartridges one found
decks for in most American cars from the late '60s
right up into the early '80s, as well as in every teen
bedroom or dorm during that period.
JackA
April 21st 16, 01:37 PM
On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 6:41:49 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote: "Yeah, if someone says "recorded on 8-track" my assumption is normal 1" 8-track
> which was the standard for years, not "Tascam-style" narrowtrack 1/2 or some "
>
> Maybe not among a production newsgroup, but
> for the 99-Percent(my peeps) "8-track" certainly
> meant the low-fi consumer cartridges one found
> decks for in most American cars from the late '60s
> right up into the early '80s, as well as in every teen
> bedroom or dorm during that period.
BUT, was it the quality of the 8 Track player that caused the low-fi sound? I'd say yes. Lots of cross-talk from what I remember.
Jack
JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
BUT, was it the quality of the 8 Track player that caused the low-fi sound? I'd say yes. Lots of
cross-talk from what I remember.
Jack "
Well, I adjusted the azimuth on a Tandy model I was
given some years ago, and got cassette-tape quality
top out of it, and good stereo separation.
I suppose if 8-track were the rage now, the low-fi
sound might be from the source itself - today's
MUSIC, and not from the deck or cartridge.
John Williamson
April 21st 16, 02:28 PM
On 21/04/2016 13:37, JackA wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 6:41:49 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote: "Yeah, if someone says "recorded on 8-track" my assumption is normal 1" 8-track
>> which was the standard for years, not "Tascam-style" narrowtrack 1/2 or some "
>>
>> Maybe not among a production newsgroup, but
>> for the 99-Percent(my peeps) "8-track" certainly
>> meant the low-fi consumer cartridges one found
>> decks for in most American cars from the late '60s
>> right up into the early '80s, as well as in every teen
>> bedroom or dorm during that period.
>
> BUT, was it the quality of the 8 Track player that caused the low-fi sound? I'd say yes. Lots of cross-talk from what I remember.
>
Basically, the whole 8 track cartridge mechanical design was a kludge
from start to finish, inspired by the American wish at the time to not
buy stuff that was not invented in the USA. The Compact Cassette was
invented by Philips in the Netherlands, the 8 track by RCA in the
States, so it was the 8 track that got fitted by "patriotic" American
car makers.
The tape (An endless loop) had to be coated with a lubricant to stop it
jamming while looping round inside the cartridge, which came off the
tape and got onto the heads, pinch roller and capstan, all of which
caused problems if the deck was not stripped for cleaning on a frequent
basis. To save cost, the head normally only had 2 gaps, and was moved up
and down on a slider by a cam, so alignment changed as the tape played
and the car vibrated, and not just when it changed tracks, as did the
vertical positioning of tape and head between playings of any particular
cartridge. The tolerances that had to be built into the cartridge case
to stop the tape jamming didn't help, either.
The electronics were as good, and in theory, the higher tape speed could
have given better quality playback than cassette. especially at high
frequencies, but the mechanical side of things were impossible to make
so that consistency was maintained.
The cross talk figures were better on 8 track, if you only count the
crosstalk on the stereo image. What you used to get was crosstalk
between tracks, so that if you were on track 3 of the 4 stereo tracks
available, you would often get bits of tracks 2 or 4 mixed in with it,
more so as the player aged and the head shifting system became sticky or
wore out.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Scott Dorsey
April 21st 16, 03:04 PM
In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 19/04/2016 10:37 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> Trevor wrote:
>>> On 18/04/2016 8:45 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 18/04/2016 2:06 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
>>>>> 8 track when it's referred to in here, though, is likely to be to a
>>>>> completely different format, which is normally 1/2" or wider tape
>>>>> running at 7.5" per second or faster, with 8 tracks available for
>>>>> recording or playback. T
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or in latter days of 8-track's popularity, on 1/4" tape. In semi-pro or
>>>> enthusiastic-amateur sphere at least. Ah, my old Tascam 388 in the
>>>> '80s....
>>>
>>> Or worse still, 8 track porta pro cassette decks using 1/8" compact
>>> cassettes at either 1 7/8ips or sometimes 3 3/4ips.
>>> Thank god we no longer have to put up with that!
>>>
>>
>> I dunno - with dbx it mangled drums nicely. Given the physical
>> limitations of the format, it's amazing it worked at all.
>
>Right, but "worked" is a very subjective opinion in this case!
>(as is "mangled drums nicely" of course)
The thing about rock drums is that they usually don't sound very much like
an actual trap kit, because they aren't supposed to.
dbx doesn't seem like a good idea to me but I certainly understand folks
saturating tape, clipping mike preamps, and so forth, in order to get a
given drum sound.
Stick an accurate lab microphone that can handle high pressures linearly
inside a kick drum and what you get is not very useful...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey
April 21st 16, 03:13 PM
> wrote:
>JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
>BUT, was it the quality of the 8 Track player that caused the low-fi sound? I'd say yes. Lots of
>cross-talk from what I remember.
>
>
>Well, I adjusted the azimuth on a Tandy model I was
>given some years ago, and got cassette-tape quality
>top out of it, and good stereo separation.
For about five minutes until the azimuth drifted off again. Not to mention
the height is never quite right. The whole moving head concept is a bad one.
We used to duplicate tapes for 8-track cartridges at 30 ips on modified
Ampex 3200 duplicator machines, and the azimuth error from the high speed
duplication wasn't even as bad as the azimuth drift on the machines.
But, they were intended to be cheap for continuous background music in cars,
high fidelity was not one of the design concerns. Take out a tape, put in
a new tape, and the head is in a different place. Change tracks a couple times
until you're back at the beginning and the head is in a different place.
It's very difficult to make it mechanically stable, it's pretty much impossible
to make it mechanically stable with stamped metal components.
We still had a customer for 8-track duping as late as 1985. He insisted that
8-tracks had more bass than cassettes because the cartridges were bigger.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Tobiah
April 21st 16, 03:16 PM
On 04/18/2016 07:26 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 4/17/2016 8:49 AM, wrote:
>> Word Usage Related To this Field
>
> I wish news programs would quit saying "tape," as in "Here's some
> tape from our live interview."
Or what about the thing in my pocket that I still refer to
as my 'phone'. While it's capable of telephony, it's really
more of an add-on feature now, and easily accounts for less than 1%
of the usage time for the device in my case.
Tobiah
JackA
April 21st 16, 03:34 PM
On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 9:28:57 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 21/04/2016 13:37, JackA wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 6:41:49 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> >> Scott Dorsey wrote: "Yeah, if someone says "recorded on 8-track" my assumption is normal 1" 8-track
> >> which was the standard for years, not "Tascam-style" narrowtrack 1/2 or some "
> >>
> >> Maybe not among a production newsgroup, but
> >> for the 99-Percent(my peeps) "8-track" certainly
> >> meant the low-fi consumer cartridges one found
> >> decks for in most American cars from the late '60s
> >> right up into the early '80s, as well as in every teen
> >> bedroom or dorm during that period.
> >
> > BUT, was it the quality of the 8 Track player that caused the low-fi sound? I'd say yes. Lots of cross-talk from what I remember.
> >
> Basically, the whole 8 track cartridge mechanical design was a kludge
> from start to finish, inspired by the American wish at the time to not
> buy stuff that was not invented in the USA. The Compact Cassette was
> invented by Philips in the Netherlands, the 8 track by RCA in the
> States, so it was the 8 track that got fitted by "patriotic" American
> car makers.
>
> The tape (An endless loop) had to be coated with a lubricant to stop it
> jamming while looping round inside the cartridge, which came off the
> tape and got onto the heads, pinch roller and capstan, all of which
> caused problems if the deck was not stripped for cleaning on a frequent
> basis. To save cost, the head normally only had 2 gaps, and was moved up
> and down on a slider by a cam, so alignment changed as the tape played
> and the car vibrated, and not just when it changed tracks, as did the
> vertical positioning of tape and head between playings of any particular
> cartridge. The tolerances that had to be built into the cartridge case
> to stop the tape jamming didn't help, either.
>
> The electronics were as good, and in theory, the higher tape speed could
> have given better quality playback than cassette. especially at high
> frequencies, but the mechanical side of things were impossible to make
> so that consistency was maintained.
>
> The cross talk figures were better on 8 track, if you only count the
> crosstalk on the stereo image. What you used to get was crosstalk
> between tracks, so that if you were on track 3 of the 4 stereo tracks
> available, you would often get bits of tracks 2 or 4 mixed in with it,
> more so as the player aged and the head shifting system became sticky or
> wore out.
I agree, movement of playback head caused problems. Even in the Pioneer cassette deck I had (have) [had two actually], it flipped (self reversing), but the vibration caused the pins securing it, to pull from the casting! That's why they were remanufactured, but they never actually rectified the problem. Probably similar to 8 track, plastic parts involved in holding/controlling azimuth adjustments.
Jack
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.
JackA
April 21st 16, 04:11 PM
On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 10:04:54 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
> >On 19/04/2016 10:37 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
> >> Trevor wrote:
> >>> On 18/04/2016 8:45 AM, geoff wrote:
> >>>> On 18/04/2016 2:06 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
> >>>>> 8 track when it's referred to in here, though, is likely to be to a
> >>>>> completely different format, which is normally 1/2" or wider tape
> >>>>> running at 7.5" per second or faster, with 8 tracks available for
> >>>>> recording or playback. T
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Or in latter days of 8-track's popularity, on 1/4" tape. In semi-pro or
> >>>> enthusiastic-amateur sphere at least. Ah, my old Tascam 388 in the
> >>>> '80s....
> >>>
> >>> Or worse still, 8 track porta pro cassette decks using 1/8" compact
> >>> cassettes at either 1 7/8ips or sometimes 3 3/4ips.
> >>> Thank god we no longer have to put up with that!
> >>>
> >>
> >> I dunno - with dbx it mangled drums nicely. Given the physical
> >> limitations of the format, it's amazing it worked at all.
> >
> >Right, but "worked" is a very subjective opinion in this case!
> >(as is "mangled drums nicely" of course)
>
> The thing about rock drums is that they usually don't sound very much like
> an actual trap kit, because they aren't supposed to.
Yet, when a professional drummer drum, drums sound like they are supposed to.
Pop music, they always manipulate (preprocess) the drums, because they become annoying when mixing. Sounds like wet bedpans! :)
Same with the electric guitar, as my ears tell me, is being phased out of Pop music.
Jack
>
> dbx doesn't seem like a good idea to me but I certainly understand folks
> saturating tape, clipping mike preamps, and so forth, in order to get a
> given drum sound.
>
> Stick an accurate lab microphone that can handle high pressures linearly
> inside a kick drum and what you get is not very useful...
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Frank Stearns
April 21st 16, 04:29 PM
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
snips
>We still had a customer for 8-track duping as late as 1985. He insisted that
>8-tracks had more bass than cassettes because the cartridges were bigger.
Didn't the consumer 8-tracks run at 3 3/4 ips? You'd think the bass would be better
on the 1 7/8 ips cassettes... guffaw.
But that's right... The bigger box had more room for the bass gnomes to move and
flex their muscle.
Frank
Mobile Audio
PS: I just resurrected a 45 year-old Teac 1/4 track deck to transfer some home voice
recital recordings for a client. Then I found some of the early, early location
stuff I'd done to 1/4 track as a high school kid. (3M 201 from the late 1960s/early
1970s -- no sticky shed.)
This all held up remarkably well, or maybe that was just my low expectations going
in.
But I must admit, after going through that Teac, that they actually did some good
engineering, given all the constraints of building consumer gear. Flywheel was
relatively massive and the bearings still in perfect condition. Same for the motors.
(Capstan drive belt had turned into whithered pieces of beef jerkey, however.) Just
wish they had built in some scrape flutter idlers.
--
JackA
April 21st 16, 05:58 PM
On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 11:29:53 AM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
> snips
>
> >We still had a customer for 8-track duping as late as 1985. He insisted that
> >8-tracks had more bass than cassettes because the cartridges were bigger.
>
> Didn't the consumer 8-tracks run at 3 3/4 ips? You'd think the bass would be better
> on the 1 7/8 ips cassettes... guffaw.
I enjoyed the sound of [dubbed] cassettes, more than 8 Track. I'm guessing, [prerecorded] 8 Tracks used inferior tape.
Jack
>
> But that's right... The bigger box had more room for the bass gnomes to move and
> flex their muscle.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>
> PS: I just resurrected a 45 year-old Teac 1/4 track deck to transfer some home voice
> recital recordings for a client. Then I found some of the early, early location
> stuff I'd done to 1/4 track as a high school kid. (3M 201 from the late 1960s/early
> 1970s -- no sticky shed.)
>
> This all held up remarkably well, or maybe that was just my low expectations going
> in.
>
> But I must admit, after going through that Teac, that they actually did some good
> engineering, given all the constraints of building consumer gear. Flywheel was
> relatively massive and the bearings still in perfect condition. Same for the motors.
> (Capstan drive belt had turned into whithered pieces of beef jerkey, however.) Just
> wish they had built in some scrape flutter idlers.
>
> --
> .
Phil W
April 21st 16, 07:59 PM
Trevor:
> I don't see the point of a low quality 8 track myself. If all I needed
> Low-Fi, stereo was adequate, and if I needed multi-track for real
> recordings, Low-Fi was pointless to me.
Well, it was never great quality, of course. But consider being a highschool
student (25-30 years ago) with less than little money and many ways to spend
it, but the wish to do some basic multitracking for song ideas and such...
Those little cassette 4- or 8-track recorders were more or less the only
thing, that you could afford to get somewhere near the concept at all.
> Actually the ONLY cassettes I ever played were in the car, or on a
> walkman. Even for my personal vinyl recordings at home I used a R2R.
My generation is probably too young for R2R hifi stuff. It´s something that
some (=very few) of our parents had, but we grew up with cassettes.
No offense intended! Just a different perspective on things.
Phil
Scott Dorsey
April 21st 16, 08:53 PM
Phil W > wrote:
>Trevor:
>
>> I don't see the point of a low quality 8 track myself. If all I needed
>> Low-Fi, stereo was adequate, and if I needed multi-track for real
>> recordings, Low-Fi was pointless to me.
>
>Well, it was never great quality, of course. But consider being a highschool
>student (25-30 years ago) with less than little money and many ways to spend
>it, but the wish to do some basic multitracking for song ideas and such...
>Those little cassette 4- or 8-track recorders were more or less the only
>thing, that you could afford to get somewhere near the concept at all.
That's why you get a bunch of friends together and give them parts.
"You go shoop-shoop-shoop when he goes nanananana."
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
JackA
April 21st 16, 09:13 PM
On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 3:04:04 PM UTC-4, Phil W wrote:
> Trevor:
>
> > I don't see the point of a low quality 8 track myself. If all I needed
> > Low-Fi, stereo was adequate, and if I needed multi-track for real
> > recordings, Low-Fi was pointless to me.
>
> Well, it was never great quality, of course. But consider being a highschool
> student (25-30 years ago) with less than little money and many ways to spend
> it, but the wish to do some basic multitracking for song ideas and such....
> Those little cassette 4- or 8-track recorders were more or less the only
> thing, that you could afford to get somewhere near the concept at all.
>
> > Actually the ONLY cassettes I ever played were in the car, or on a
> > walkman. Even for my personal vinyl recordings at home I used a R2R.
>
> My generation is probably too young for R2R hifi stuff. It´s something that
> some (=very few) of our parents had, but we grew up with cassettes.
>
>
> No offense intended! Just a different perspective on things.
>
>
> Phil
Oh, My Sony RTR was featured in Live Or Let Die movie!!
Jack
Mike Rivers[_2_]
April 22nd 16, 12:11 AM
On 4/21/2016 9:58 AM, JackA wrote:
> I enjoyed the sound of [dubbed] cassettes, more than 8 Track. I'm
> guessing, [prerecorded] 8 Tracks used inferior tape.
No, just inferior technology.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson
Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then
Les Cargill[_4_]
April 22nd 16, 03:40 AM
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 19/04/2016 10:37 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>> Trevor wrote:
>>>> On 18/04/2016 8:45 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 18/04/2016 2:06 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
>>>>>> 8 track when it's referred to in here, though, is likely to be to a
>>>>>> completely different format, which is normally 1/2" or wider tape
>>>>>> running at 7.5" per second or faster, with 8 tracks available for
>>>>>> recording or playback. T
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or in latter days of 8-track's popularity, on 1/4" tape. In semi-pro or
>>>>> enthusiastic-amateur sphere at least. Ah, my old Tascam 388 in the
>>>>> '80s....
>>>>
>>>> Or worse still, 8 track porta pro cassette decks using 1/8" compact
>>>> cassettes at either 1 7/8ips or sometimes 3 3/4ips.
>>>> Thank god we no longer have to put up with that!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I dunno - with dbx it mangled drums nicely. Given the physical
>>> limitations of the format, it's amazing it worked at all.
>>
>> Right, but "worked" is a very subjective opinion in this case!
>> (as is "mangled drums nicely" of course)
>
> The thing about rock drums is that they usually don't sound very much like
> an actual trap kit, because they aren't supposed to.
>
> dbx doesn't seem like a good idea to me but I certainly understand folks
> saturating tape, clipping mike preamps, and so forth, in order to get a
> given drum sound.
>
It wasn't necessary to run 'em that hot. dbx just gave it a semblance of
a noise floor.
> Stick an accurate lab microphone that can handle high pressures linearly
> inside a kick drum and what you get is not very useful...
> --scott
Stick anything inside a kik drum and it's a lot the same. There's a
thing on Youtube where Big Mick talks about the advent of the
heavy metal "klick" kik sound mainly being a thing because they
wanted it to go typewriter-fast, not because it sounded good.
There wasn't time for a note.
>
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill[_4_]
April 22nd 16, 03:45 AM
Trevor wrote:
> On 21/04/2016 7:06 AM, Andre Majorel wrote:
>> On 2016-04-20, Trevor > wrote:
>>> On 20/04/2016 5:49 PM, Andre Majorel wrote:
>>>
>>>> I had one and was very happy with [the Tascam 238]. It had
>>>> half the track width of regular cassettes but sounded better.
>>>
>>> Damned with faint praise indeed!
>>
>> I knew you'd say something like that. :-)
>>
>>>> You may view it as an audio abomination
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>>> but it served me very well and the tape cost was around 1/50th
>>>> of what it would have been with a "proper" tape recorder.
>>>> Who can afford to pay half a day's wage for three and a half
>>>> minutes of tape ? Not me. :-)
>>>
>>> Isn't it nice you can now record 24 tracks digital at far
>>> higher quality than 2" tape and for a few dollars in media
>>> cost, and a miniscule percentage of the deck cost.
>>> And 8 tracks of real quality for less than that sad 238 even! :-)
>>
>> It is nice, though I miss the 14-button interface of the 238.
>> But, you know, if I made a list of things I'd like to change
>> about it, sound quality would be pretty far down.
>>
>> I would like to agree with you and go self-flagellate in penance
>> for having ever liked that heap of ****. But the truth is that
>> it sounded good enough for me.
>
> Which is all that matters to you of course, but I don't see the point of
> a low quality 8 track myself.
The point was availability and cost.
> If all I needed Low-Fi, stereo was
> adequate, and if I needed multi-track for real recordings, Low-Fi was
> pointless to me.
> Actually the ONLY cassettes I ever played were in the car, or on a
> walkman. Even for my personal vinyl recordings at home I used a R2R.
>
Have you ever heard anything done on an 8-track cassette? It sounded
better than my old consumer reel to reel (1/4 track stereo) machine.
It obviously didn't sound like an Ampex.
> Trevor.
>
>
--
Les Cargill
John Williamson
April 22nd 16, 04:55 AM
On 20/04/2016 23:51, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 5:30:26 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 20/04/2016 15:45, JackA wrote:
>>
>>> I prefered Sony Metal Tape, Type 4...
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Metal-Xr-Minute-Audiocassette/dp/B0079KBBWA
>>>
>>> Remember those indents they had on the plastic case to detect Dolby encoding?!
>>>
>> No. because the notches were there to disable recording by removong the
>> tab, indicating type II (Chromium dioxide based tape) for those
>> recorders and players that could detect the nothch and type 4 (Metal
>> based tape) respectively. The standard did not allow for a notch to
>> indicate Dolby encoding.
>
> Why they became obsolete; not enough forethought planning!! :-)
>
Cassette became obsolete due to the better quality of CD.
A notch to indicate Dolby would have needed to have a slider, as Dolby
is not available on all recorders, and playing back a non-Dolby cassette
with Dolby enabled is not a Good Thing. People re-used tapes...
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
JackA
April 22nd 16, 06:14 AM
On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 7:11:39 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 4/21/2016 9:58 AM, JackA wrote:
> > I enjoyed the sound of [dubbed] cassettes, more than 8 Track. I'm
> > guessing, [prerecorded] 8 Tracks used inferior tape.
>
> No, just inferior technology.
You could say the same about VCRs vs Beta. I fixed enough VCRs to claim 90% of the time mechanical issues were VCRs major problem.
Use to see how well most commercial units could create a still frame, some fairly expensive. Most were so so, no thrill. BUT, after a friend brought home a [large] Panasonic unit that a school no longer needed, and seeing the still quality as clear as a photo, what technology most of had was inferior in quality.
Jack
>
> --
> "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
> a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
> operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson
>
> Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then
JackA
April 22nd 16, 06:17 AM
On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 11:55:32 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 20/04/2016 23:51, JackA wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 5:30:26 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 20/04/2016 15:45, JackA wrote:
> >>
> >>> I prefered Sony Metal Tape, Type 4...
> >>>
> >>> http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Metal-Xr-Minute-Audiocassette/dp/B0079KBBWA
> >>>
> >>> Remember those indents they had on the plastic case to detect Dolby encoding?!
> >>>
> >> No. because the notches were there to disable recording by removong the
> >> tab, indicating type II (Chromium dioxide based tape) for those
> >> recorders and players that could detect the nothch and type 4 (Metal
> >> based tape) respectively. The standard did not allow for a notch to
> >> indicate Dolby encoding.
> >
> > Why they became obsolete; not enough forethought planning!! :-)
> >
> Cassette became obsolete due to the better quality of CD.
.... but as Doug Sax claimed, once man had a better handle on mastering digital sound, CDs may be greatly accepted.
Jack
>
> A notch to indicate Dolby would have needed to have a slider, as Dolby
> is not available on all recorders, and playing back a non-Dolby cassette
> with Dolby enabled is not a Good Thing. People re-used tapes...
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.
John Williamson
April 22nd 16, 07:49 AM
On 22/04/2016 06:17, JackA wrote:
>
> ... but as Doug Sax claimed, once man had a better handle on mastering digital sound, CDs may be greatly accepted.
>
Even the earliest CDs had much better sound quality and were less liable
to damage during playback and transport than the same release on cassette.
As far as the record companies were concerned at the time, CDs were
cheaper to produce and initially were harder to copy than cassettes.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Les Cargill[_4_]
April 22nd 16, 08:55 AM
John Williamson wrote:
> On 22/04/2016 06:17, JackA wrote:
>
>>
>> ... but as Doug Sax claimed, once man had a better handle on mastering
>> digital sound, CDs may be greatly accepted.
>>
> Even the earliest CDs had much better sound quality and were less liable
> to damage during playback and transport than the same release on cassette.
>
> As far as the record companies were concerned at the time, CDs were
> cheaper to produce
Except that manufacturing capacity was quite constrained for a long time...
> and initially were harder to copy than cassettes.
>
>
reselling all the old records was of interest for both formats.
--
Les Cargill
Scott Dorsey
April 22nd 16, 01:34 PM
Les Cargill > wrote:
>John Williamson wrote:
>> On 22/04/2016 06:17, JackA wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ... but as Doug Sax claimed, once man had a better handle on mastering
>>> digital sound, CDs may be greatly accepted.
>>>
>> Even the earliest CDs had much better sound quality and were less liable
>> to damage during playback and transport than the same release on cassette.
>>
>> As far as the record companies were concerned at the time, CDs were
>> cheaper to produce
>
>Except that manufacturing capacity was quite constrained for a long time...
Until Nimbus came out with the all-in-one pressing glass mastering system
that didn't require a clean room, the cost for small CD runs was pretty high.
That was up-front cost, though, and unlike the LP, you could have a single
stamper used for an enormously large run. So it was a big win for the major
labels once they were able to get pressing in-house, but at first it was a
big expense. And of course for the first couple years everyone was worried
it would turn into another damn Elcaset.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Mike Rivers[_2_]
April 22nd 16, 02:27 PM
On 4/21/2016 10:14 PM, JackA wrote:
>> No, just inferior technology.
> You could say the same about VCRs vs Beta. I fixed enough VCRs to
> claim 90% of the time mechanical issues were VCRs major problem.
I wasn't talking about inferior commercial implementations of a design,
I was talking about designs that have inherent flaws that prevent
performance from ever achieving its potential. If you've ever worked on
analog tape recorders, you understand how important maintaining a fixed
tape path is, but how accurately can you make it when you mold the
guides into a plastic shell. How can two ever be alike? However, two of
the design goals of the compact cassette technology was low cost and
ease of use (no threading path to get wrong).
Sure, recording four tracks on a 0.15" wide tape moving across the head
at 1-7/8 inches per second is going to have some compromises over
recording two tracks on 0.25" tape moving at 15 inches per second, but
there are relatively inexpensive electronic designs that can narrow that
gap. But the mechanical problems can't be solved cheaply. There was at
least one cassette deck made that pulled the tape out of the shell and
ran it through a more conventional head assembly, but it was too
expensive for the general public who would rather pay less and either
accept, ignore, or be ignorant of what's better.
That hasn't changed one bit, which is why the MP3 digital format is as
popular as it is.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson
Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then
> >
> >
>
> reselling all the old records was of interest for both formats.
>
that is a key point
I think that is why the lables "remaster" old records and release on new format.
When you buy music on a record or any other format, you really buy the rights to listen to the content, nothing more.
Someone could probably succesfully argue in court, if they release the EXACT SAME content on a new format i.e. CD, since I already bought the record, I already have the license to listen to that content, therefore I should be able to buy a CD version at a very reduced cost or heven forbid, obtain a copy for free. After all, I already own the rights to listen to the content when I bought the record.
But if they "remaster", then it can be considered "new content" so they can charge full price.
It's all about the money.
JackA
April 22nd 16, 04:26 PM
On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 2:49:09 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 22/04/2016 06:17, JackA wrote:
>
> >
> > ... but as Doug Sax claimed, once man had a better handle on mastering digital sound, CDs may be greatly accepted.
> >
> Even the earliest CDs had much better sound quality and were less liable
> to damage during playback and transport than the same release on cassette.
>
> As far as the record companies were concerned at the time, CDs were
> cheaper to produce and initially were harder to copy than cassettes.
So, you believe CDs offered "better" sound quality than vinyl records.
If EVERYTHING existed when the mixed for vinyl, I would agree.
But, as I know, much was lost. Even Columbia Records farmed out a lot of work to independent studios, about the early 70's, and just received a Master tape. As well all know, you can only get so much mileage from a single tape.
But, okay, this is totally different topic, I just wanted to address it, especially when someone claims, "better" audio.
Jack
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.
Mike Rivers[_2_]
April 22nd 16, 05:00 PM
On 4/22/2016 8:26 AM, JackA wrote:
> So, you believe CDs offered "better" sound quality than vinyl
> records.
"Everything" is a mighty broad statement. I wouldn't even go so far as
to say that everything _COULD_ sound better on CD than on a phonograph
record, because you can cut and reproduce audio above 22 kHz on a
record. Whether that makes it sound better than a CD is a matter for
those who like to argue about this (and dogs, too). But other than
frequency response, everything that goes into the hopper of "sound
quality" is better with CD than on record - lower harmonic distortion,
lower intermodulation distortion, no wow or flutter, no surface noise,
overall lower noise floor and greater dynamic range.
Any differences between a phonograph record and a CD made from the tape
before it was processed before cutting the lacquer master are a matter
of judgement (or lack thereof) of whoever makes the transfer. But even a
direct transfer from the cuttinng master to a CD master would be no
worse than the phonograph record in its first playing on a high quality
turntable. I think that "diameter compensation" (compensation for the
loss of high frequency response as the stylus gets closer to the center
of the disk) is applied in the cutting process, after the master tape,
but I'm not sure of this. Scott will know (or will know that sometimes
it is and sometimes it isn't).
> If EVERYTHING existed when the mixed for vinyl, I would
> agree. But, as I know, much was lost. Even Columbia Records farmed
> out a lot of work to independent studios, about the early 70's, and
> just received a Master tape.
This is still the way it is. You send your best mix to Bernie Grundman,
he "masters" it, and that's what you send to Columbia Records for your
release. The record labels would prefer to own everything, but they
don't always get it. Artists are getting more concerned with ownership
now that we know that music can be forever.
What was it that the lately lamented Prince said - something like "If
you don't own your masters, then your masters own you."
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson
Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then
John Williamson
April 22nd 16, 05:13 PM
On 22/04/2016 16:26, JackA wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 2:49:09 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 22/04/2016 06:17, JackA wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ... but as Doug Sax claimed, once man had a better handle on mastering digital sound, CDs may be greatly accepted.
>>>
>> Even the earliest CDs had much better sound quality and were less liable
>> to damage during playback and transport than the same release on cassette.
>>
>> As far as the record companies were concerned at the time, CDs were
>> cheaper to produce and initially were harder to copy than cassettes.
>
> So, you believe CDs offered "better" sound quality than vinyl records.
Now, where did I say that? I said that CD was always better than
cassette. Maybe the memory's going or JackAss can't read? I wonder which
is more likely, given that the post he replied to is quoted above his reply?
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
JackA
April 22nd 16, 05:49 PM
On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 12:01:59 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 4/22/2016 8:26 AM, JackA wrote:
> > So, you believe CDs offered "better" sound quality than vinyl
> > records.
>
> "Everything" is a mighty broad statement. I wouldn't even go so far as
> to say that everything _COULD_ sound better on CD than on a phonograph
> record, because you can cut and reproduce audio above 22 kHz on a
> record. Whether that makes it sound better than a CD is a matter for
> those who like to argue about this (and dogs, too). But other than
> frequency response, everything that goes into the hopper of "sound
> quality" is better with CD than on record - lower harmonic distortion,
> lower intermodulation distortion, no wow or flutter, no surface noise,
> overall lower noise floor and greater dynamic range.
Good points. And if you remix, no need to put your mixed masterpiece on [noisy] tape. On YouTube, you can find one or more people bragging about the extended fidelity of vinyl, exceeding 22kHz [both visually and audible]. But none have offered truncating everything below those frequencies to "hear" what's not reproduced on CD. For all I know, it's just noise.
>
> Any differences between a phonograph record and a CD made from the tape
> before it was processed before cutting the lacquer master are a matter
> of judgement (or lack thereof) of whoever makes the transfer. But even a
> direct transfer from the cuttinng master to a CD master would be no
> worse than the phonograph record in its first playing on a high quality
> turntable. I think that "diameter compensation" (compensation for the
> loss of high frequency response as the stylus gets closer to the center
> of the disk) is applied in the cutting process, after the master tape,
> but I'm not sure of this. Scott will know (or will know that sometimes
> it is and sometimes it isn't).
Understood. But you bring up another excellent point, RIAA compensation, how accurate it is. No need for that on CD. BUT, I felt they had one heck of a lot more electric analog gadgets to enhance sound, than the average people who remastered for CD. Furthermore, due to time, most Mastering notes and electronic equipment were lost to time (Capitol Records).
Even though I don't think much of Steve Hoffman's audio work, I have to admit, he was probably one who finally realized that an equalizer was necessary to balance sound/tone. I come across many CDs where the bass is missing from what was mastered on vinyl. I do agree with others (they complain about the lack of warm sound), one area where a vinyl records "sounded" better than CD [but can be DAW repaired].
Thanks.
Jack
ref: http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/
>
> > If EVERYTHING existed when the mixed for vinyl, I would
> > agree. But, as I know, much was lost. Even Columbia Records farmed
> > out a lot of work to independent studios, about the early 70's, and
> > just received a Master tape.
>
> This is still the way it is. You send your best mix to Bernie Grundman,
> he "masters" it, and that's what you send to Columbia Records for your
> release. The record labels would prefer to own everything, but they
> don't always get it. Artists are getting more concerned with ownership
> now that we know that music can be forever.
>
> What was it that the lately lamented Prince said - something like "If
> you don't own your masters, then your masters own you."
>
>
>
> --
> "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
> a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
> operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson
>
> Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then
JackA
April 22nd 16, 06:16 PM
On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 12:01:59 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 4/22/2016 8:26 AM, JackA wrote:
> > So, you believe CDs offered "better" sound quality than vinyl
> > records.
>
> "Everything" is a mighty broad statement. I wouldn't even go so far as
> to say that everything _COULD_ sound better on CD than on a phonograph
> record, because you can cut and reproduce audio above 22 kHz on a
> record. Whether that makes it sound better than a CD is a matter for
> those who like to argue about this (and dogs, too). But other than
> frequency response, everything that goes into the hopper of "sound
> quality" is better with CD than on record - lower harmonic distortion,
> lower intermodulation distortion, no wow or flutter, no surface noise,
> overall lower noise floor and greater dynamic range.
>
> Any differences between a phonograph record and a CD made from the tape
> before it was processed before cutting the lacquer master are a matter
> of judgement (or lack thereof) of whoever makes the transfer. But even a
> direct transfer from the cuttinng master to a CD master would be no
> worse than the phonograph record in its first playing on a high quality
> turntable. I think that "diameter compensation" (compensation for the
> loss of high frequency response as the stylus gets closer to the center
> of the disk) is applied in the cutting process, after the master tape,
> but I'm not sure of this. Scott will know (or will know that sometimes
> it is and sometimes it isn't).
>
> > If EVERYTHING existed when the mixed for vinyl, I would
> > agree. But, as I know, much was lost. Even Columbia Records farmed
> > out a lot of work to independent studios, about the early 70's, and
> > just received a Master tape.
>
> This is still the way it is. You send your best mix to Bernie Grundman,
p.s....
Believe he did ELO (Electric Light Orchestra) material. It was "ok", but I could tell, even before visiting his website, he restricted himself to analog.
Heck, they tried EVERYTHING for CD mastering, thinking it would help, such as 100% "tube" equipment. Sadly, nothing actually improved the audio until DAW became readily available.
Jack
Jack
> he "masters" it, and that's what you send to Columbia Records for your
> release. The record labels would prefer to own everything, but they
> don't always get it. Artists are getting more concerned with ownership
> now that we know that music can be forever.
>
> What was it that the lately lamented Prince said - something like "If
> you don't own your masters, then your masters own you."
>
>
>
> --
> "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
> a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
> operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson
>
> Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then
Nil[_2_]
April 22nd 16, 07:07 PM
On 22 Apr 2016, (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
rec.audio.pro:
> Until Nimbus came out with the all-in-one pressing glass mastering
> system that didn't require a clean room, the cost for small CD
> runs was pretty high. That was up-front cost, though, and unlike
> the LP, you could have a single stamper used for an enormously
> large run. So it was a big win for the major labels once they
> were able to get pressing in-house, but at first it was a big
> expense. And of course for the first couple years everyone was
> worried it would turn into another damn Elcaset.
Interesting! I never knew about that, but I did notice that the price
and availability of commercial CDs went down after a few years of their
availability. I assumed it was due to the manufacturing facilities
finally getting ramped up for larger productions, but I hadn't thought
of the machines getting simpler and more available.
Nil[_2_]
April 22nd 16, 07:21 PM
On 22 Apr 2016, John Williamson >
wrote in rec.audio.pro:
> Now, where did I say that? I said that CD was always better than
> cassette. Maybe the memory's going or JackAss can't read? I wonder
> which is more likely, given that the post he replied to is quoted
> above his reply?
His tactic is to deliberately misquote you and/or say things that are
wildly wrong. This is an attempt to coerce you to respond, keeping the
attention focused on him. Further mis-statements will follow. The game
can go on indefinitely if he can find a willing/naive partner to jerk
around.
Mike Rivers[_2_]
April 23rd 16, 01:11 AM
On 4/22/2016 9:49 AM, JackA wrote:
> On YouTube, you can find one or more people bragging about the
> extended fidelity of vinyl, exceeding 22kHz [both visually and
> audible]. But none have offered truncating everything below those
> frequencies to "hear" what's not reproduced on CD. For all I know,
> it's just noise.
That's probably true. But I recall an experiment that Bob Katz conducted
with himself as the subject. He made up a set of 44.1 kHz music files
(and I think this was still in the 16-bit days) with the high end
chopped off at different frequencies, and he concluded that he couldn't
reliably tell the full bandwidth file from a truncated one until he had
chopped off everything above 10 kHz, or maybe even lower. And he's a
mastering engineer who's pretty well respected.
Bob's the kind who's always doubting himself and his system trying to
improve his gear and himself, and has upgraded his monitoring many times
since the time of that experiment. So hearing 22 kHz isn't really
anything to brag about if there's not enough music up there to add to
your enjoyment.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson
Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then
geoff
April 23rd 16, 01:40 AM
On 23/04/2016 1:33 AM, wrote:
y own the rights to listen to the content when I bought the
> record.
>
> But if they "remaster", then it can be considered "new content" so
> they can charge full price.
>
> It's all about the money.
>
.... not to mention offering an improved version of the product that
would otherwise be not available to the public.
Well, at least in recent times potentially 'actually' improved versions,
instead of the earlier attempts that may have been limited by cruder
production technology. Some say cynically for financial reasons, some
say to fit a current misguided aural fad (the over-brightness and
loudness things), or maybe just the best that could be done at the time.
I, for one, have absolutely no regrets about paying again for the likes
of the latest Beatles and Floyd remastered CDs. Eargerly waiting for more.
A trade-in 'upgrade' arrangement may have been fairer.
geoff
Scott Dorsey
April 23rd 16, 01:45 AM
In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 4/22/2016 9:49 AM, JackA wrote:
>> On YouTube, you can find one or more people bragging about the
>> extended fidelity of vinyl, exceeding 22kHz [both visually and
>> audible]. But none have offered truncating everything below those
>> frequencies to "hear" what's not reproduced on CD. For all I know,
>> it's just noise.
>
>That's probably true. But I recall an experiment that Bob Katz conducted
>with himself as the subject. He made up a set of 44.1 kHz music files
>(and I think this was still in the 16-bit days) with the high end
>chopped off at different frequencies, and he concluded that he couldn't
>reliably tell the full bandwidth file from a truncated one until he had
>chopped off everything above 10 kHz, or maybe even lower. And he's a
>mastering engineer who's pretty well respected.
This is true, but more importantly related to the original argument is the fact
that you really have zero headroom in the top octave on an LP, and it's
very hard to cut high frequencies. It's even harder for typical playback
gear to track them. With a lot of tweaking it's not too hard to get low
level 22 KHz tones on the outer grooves of an LP, but get up anwhere near
operating level and the slew limiting kills you; the stylus just can't move
that fast. On inner grooves you'll be lucky to get anything much about 10 KHz
at all.
Playback is even worse, and it's very easy to cut a record that nobody can
play.
It's a LOT easier to get clean top end on a CD than on an LP, and there is
so much more room to with with. If anything, the valid audiophile argument
should be that the high frequency limitations of the LP prevent bad mastering
decisions from being made to exaggerate the top end and limit aggressively.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
I think the steepness of the roll-off is also important.
If you have a sharp cutoff, you get ringing and other ugly sounds.
I think a gradual roll-off is usually preferable, even if that means you may
Loose some componefts.
This is true for both the top and bottom ends. It is easier to hearing the bass.
geoff
April 23rd 16, 01:51 AM
On 23/04/2016 4:00 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 4/22/2016 8:26 AM, JackA wrote:
>> So, you believe CDs offered "better" sound quality than vinyl
>> records.
>
> "Everything" is a mighty broad statement. I wouldn't even go so far as
> to say that everything _COULD_ sound better on CD than on a phonograph
> record, because you can cut and reproduce audio above 22 kHz on a
> record. Whether that makes it sound better than a CD is a matter for
> those who like to argue about this (and dogs, too). But other than
> frequency response,
Make that "ultra-high frequency response". Try playing program with
content including 20Hz or 20kHz back at max volume on vinyl !
I have a CD I made from a direct-cut LP that seems pretty much
indistinguishable from the LP, which to me indicates (in this case at
least) that the 'quality' of CD is at least the equal of the 'quality'
of vinyl. Which in this instance would appear to be theory bourne out in
practice.
geoff
Mike Rivers[_2_]
April 23rd 16, 02:11 AM
On 4/22/2016 5:45 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> It's a LOT easier to get clean top end on a CD than on an LP, and there is
> so much more room to with with. If anything, the valid audiophile argument
> should be that the high frequency limitations of the LP prevent bad mastering
> decisions from being made to exaggerate the top end and limit aggressively.
Wow! That's really a great way to look at it. There's plenty of other
ways to badly master an LP, though, than to try to get extreme high end
to the listener's ears.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson
Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then
geoff wrote: "On 23/04/2016 1:33 AM, wrote:
y own the rights to listen to the content when I bought the
> record.
>
> But if they "remaster", then it can be considered "new content" so
> they can charge full price.
>
> It's all about the money.
>
.... not to mention offering an improved version of the product that
would otherwise be not available to the public. "
Whether or not an actual improvement is purely
subjective.
"Well, at least in recent times potentially 'actually' improved versions,
instead of the earlier attempts that may have been limited by cruder
production technology. Some say cynically for financial reasons, some
say to fit a current misguided aural fad (the over-brightness and
loudness things), or maybe just the best that could be done at the time.
I, for one, have absolutely no regrets about paying again for the likes
of the latest Beatles and Floyd remastered CDs. Eargerly waiting for more. "
So you're pro-remaster. Myself I'd rather leave the past -
and our musical accounts of it - alone.
"A trade-in 'upgrade' arrangement may have been fairer.
geoff "
Les Cargill[_4_]
April 23rd 16, 04:21 AM
Scott Dorsey wrote:
<snip>
> It's a LOT easier to get clean top end on a CD than on an LP, and there is
> so much more room to with with. If anything, the valid audiophile argument
> should be that the high frequency limitations of the LP prevent bad mastering
> decisions from being made to exaggerate the top end and limit aggressively.
> --scott
>
What's funny is that in the transition from vinyl to CD, I expected a
lot more linear top end in CD, and I was disappointed. Most of the
horse-poop on the vinyl releases was also on the CD.
It took a long time for this to be reliably straightened out.
It turns out recordings are not controlled experiments.
--
Les Cargill
JackA
April 23rd 16, 05:42 AM
On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 8:12:37 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 4/22/2016 9:49 AM, JackA wrote:
> > On YouTube, you can find one or more people bragging about the
> > extended fidelity of vinyl, exceeding 22kHz [both visually and
> > audible]. But none have offered truncating everything below those
> > frequencies to "hear" what's not reproduced on CD. For all I know,
> > it's just noise.
>
> That's probably true. But I recall an experiment that Bob Katz conducted
> with himself as the subject. He made up a set of 44.1 kHz music files
> (and I think this was still in the 16-bit days) with the high end
> chopped off at different frequencies, and he concluded that he couldn't
> reliably tell the full bandwidth file from a truncated one until he had
> chopped off everything above 10 kHz, or maybe even lower. And he's a
> mastering engineer who's pretty well respected.
>
> Bob's the kind who's always doubting himself and his system trying to
> improve his gear and himself, and has upgraded his monitoring many times
> since the time of that experiment. So hearing 22 kHz isn't really
> anything to brag about if there's not enough music up there to add to
> your enjoyment.
Interesting. Thanks.
I can't say all the songs, but one or more "Heart" group songs seem to discard everything above 11 kHz. Does it sound bad? Not really. Not sure why it was done, maybe one way of controlling cymbals.
Even though I never mastered anything totally in analog, I do feel it's best to master those analog recordings in a digital environment. At a minimum, you get to SEE what you have to work with, something they couldn't do decades back. Many a time, I'll find one or two peaks that really lowers (constrains) the RMS value. You trim those peaks and it helps clarify the content.. Found most "audiophile" LPs boring.
One last thing, I feel you reach a point when mastering (enhancing) where it's difficult to tell what "sounds" better. That's when I concentrate on vocals, such as, is it easier to comprehend the lyrics.
Jack
>
>
>
> --
> "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
> a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
> operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson
>
> Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then
JackA
April 23rd 16, 05:46 AM
On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 11:20:35 PM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> <snip>
> > It's a LOT easier to get clean top end on a CD than on an LP, and there is
> > so much more room to with with. If anything, the valid audiophile argument
> > should be that the high frequency limitations of the LP prevent bad mastering
> > decisions from being made to exaggerate the top end and limit aggressively.
> > --scott
> >
>
> What's funny is that in the transition from vinyl to CD, I expected a
> lot more linear top end in CD, and I was disappointed. Most of the
> horse-poop on the vinyl releases was also on the CD.
>
> It took a long time for this to be reliably straightened out.
That's where I feel DAW came into play. IT made a significant audio difference.
Jack
>
> It turns out recordings are not controlled experiments.
>
> --
> Les Cargill
JackA
April 23rd 16, 05:50 AM
On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 10:31:45 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> geoff wrote: "On 23/04/2016 1:33 AM, wrote:
>
> y own the rights to listen to the content when I bought the
> > record.
> >
> > But if they "remaster", then it can be considered "new content" so
> > they can charge full price.
> >
> > It's all about the money.
> >
>
>
> ... not to mention offering an improved version of the product that
> would otherwise be not available to the public. "
>
> Whether or not an actual improvement is purely
> subjective.
>
>
>
>
> "Well, at least in recent times potentially 'actually' improved versions,
> instead of the earlier attempts that may have been limited by cruder
> production technology. Some say cynically for financial reasons, some
> say to fit a current misguided aural fad (the over-brightness and
> loudness things), or maybe just the best that could be done at the time.
>
> I, for one, have absolutely no regrets about paying again for the likes
> of the latest Beatles and Floyd remastered CDs. Eargerly waiting for more. "
>
> So you're pro-remaster. Myself I'd rather leave the past -
> and our musical accounts of it - alone.
>
> "A trade-in 'upgrade' arrangement may have been fairer.
Rather than dig through my tons of CDs to find songs (for site), I end up paying for a download. EXPECTING some audio work will be necessary, remembering what was on CD, the DOWNLOADS are already enhanced/corrected.
Jack
>
> geoff "
Mike Rivers[_2_]
April 23rd 16, 06:12 AM
On 4/22/2016 9:46 PM, JackA wrote:
> That's where I feel DAW came into play. IT made a significant audio difference.
It gave people more tools that they can use to screw things up instead
of letting physics screw things up for them.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson
Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then
John Williamson
April 23rd 16, 12:22 PM
On 23/04/2016 05:50, JackA wrote:
>
> Rather than dig through my tons of CDs to find songs (for site), I end up paying for a download. EXPECTING some audio work will be necessary, remembering what was on CD, the DOWNLOADS are already enhanced/corrected.
>
They are also, in 99% or more of cases, delivered using lossy
compression, so they can not be played back at anywhere near the quality
they left the mastering suite with.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
John Williamson
April 23rd 16, 12:26 PM
On 23/04/2016 05:42, JackA wrote:
> One last thing, I feel you reach a point when mastering (enhancing) where it's difficult to tell what "sounds" better. That's when I concentrate on vocals, such as, is it easier to comprehend the lyrics.
>
If your main aim is to produce clear and understandable lyrics from a
source where they are hard to distinguish, then a bandpass filter
between 750Hz or so and 3kHz is the way to go, as the telephone
companies found out over a century ago.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Scott Dorsey
April 23rd 16, 12:33 PM
In article >,
> wrote:
>I think the steepness of the roll-off is also important.
>If you have a sharp cutoff, you get ringing and other ugly sounds.
That is the case in the analogue world, but in the digital world we can do
a sharp cutoff without any of those problems. Oversampling can be thought
of as moving the anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters into the digital
domain where they can be made cleanly.
>I think a gradual roll-off is usually preferable, even if that means you may
>Loose some componefts.
>This is true for both the top and bottom ends. It is easier to hearing the bass.
In the case of the LP, though, the degree to which you have to roll it off
is level-dependent and length-dependent and this makes it rather difficult.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey
April 23rd 16, 12:37 PM
In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 4/22/2016 5:45 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> It's a LOT easier to get clean top end on a CD than on an LP, and there is
>> so much more room to with with. If anything, the valid audiophile argument
>> should be that the high frequency limitations of the LP prevent bad mastering
>> decisions from being made to exaggerate the top end and limit aggressively.
>
>Wow! That's really a great way to look at it. There's plenty of other
>ways to badly master an LP, though, than to try to get extreme high end
>to the listener's ears.
Oh, absolutely, starting with using a worn cutting stylus, not setting the
stylus alignment up right, or not being careful about stylus temperature.
It's very very easy to screw up the job.
But it means that the kind of aggressive audio processing which has become
common in the digital world is difficult. You can limit the hell out of
things but it doesn't make the LP any louder. It's likely the cutting
engineer will have to cut it softer.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey
April 23rd 16, 12:40 PM
John Williamson > wrote:
>On 23/04/2016 05:42, JackA wrote:
>
>> One last thing, I feel you reach a point when mastering (enhancing) where it's difficult to tell what "sounds" better. That's when I concentrate on vocals, such as, is it easier to comprehend the lyrics.
>>
>If your main aim is to produce clear and understandable lyrics from a
>source where they are hard to distinguish, then a bandpass filter
>between 750Hz or so and 3kHz is the way to go, as the telephone
>companies found out over a century ago.
It has worked well for plenty of punk bands! Bandpass the vocals, then notch
the guitars and you can actually make the words out. The vocals don't sound
natural any more, but the music isn't about the vocals, it's about the guitars.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey wrote:
"But it means that the kind of aggressive audio processing which has become
common in the digital world is difficult. You can limit the hell out of
things but it doesn't make the LP any louder. "
And ^^THIS^^ explains precisely the main reason
vinyl record sales have seen a resurgence in the
last 5 or so years.
Scott Dorsey wrote: "- show quoted text -
It has worked well for plenty of punk bands! Bandpass the vocals, then notch
the guitars and you can actually make the words out. The vocals don't sound
natural any more, but the music isn't about the vocals, it's about the guitars.
- show quoted text -"
And "concentrating on the vocals" to paraphrase Jack
might explain the heabs and gobs of 2-4kHz EQ
present in his "remasters"!
JackA
April 24th 16, 10:00 PM
On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 1:13:58 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 4/22/2016 9:46 PM, JackA wrote:
> > That's where I feel DAW came into play. IT made a significant audio difference.
>
> It gave people more tools that they can use to screw things up instead
> of letting physics screw things up for them.
Sort of like saying a complete set of Snap-On tools won't make a mechanic any better, but maybe a bit more efficient.
Jack
>
> --
> "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
> a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
> operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson
>
> Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then
JackA
April 24th 16, 11:22 PM
On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 11:04:01 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> "But it means that the kind of aggressive audio processing which has become
> common in the digital world is difficult. You can limit the hell out of
> things but it doesn't make the LP any louder. "
>
> And ^^THIS^^ explains precisely the main reason
> vinyl record sales have seen a resurgence in the
> last 5 or so years.
No, it's call desperation to make a Sale.
Jack
JackA
April 24th 16, 11:44 PM
On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 11:06:27 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote: "- show quoted text -
> It has worked well for plenty of punk bands! Bandpass the vocals, then notch
> the guitars and you can actually make the words out. The vocals don't sound
> natural any more, but the music isn't about the vocals, it's about the guitars.
> - show quoted text -"
>
> And "concentrating on the vocals" to paraphrase Jack
> might explain the heabs and gobs of 2-4kHz EQ
> present in his "remasters"!
You: OMG Brickwalling!!!
You: Vocals too loud!
You: Never remix multi-tracks!!
Not what I'd call a very interesting audio history! :)
Jack
On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 6:44:07 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 11:06:27 AM UTC-4l.com wrote:
> > Scott Dorsey wrote: "- show quoted text -
> > It has worked well for plenty of punk bands! Bandpass the vocals, then notch
> > the guitars and you can actually make the words out. The vocals don't sound
> > natural any more, but the music isn't about the vocals, it's about the guitars.
> > - show quoted text -"
> >
> > And "concentrating on the vocals" to paraphrase Jack
> > might explain the heabs and gobs of 2-4kHz EQ
> > present in his "remasters"!
>
> You: OMG Brickwalling!!!
> You: Vocals too loud!
> You: Never remix multi-tracks!!
>
> Not what I'd call a very interesting audio history! :)
>
> Jack
________
Again, you are misinterpreting what
others say on here.
I never said the "vocals are too loud".
In fact I find vocals to be buried in
much of modern music.
But that's something that a ton of
upper-mid-range EQ is not always needed
to fix.
See that vox fader? Push it up a notch,
and EQ out vocal frequencies from OTHER
instruments sharing the vocal portion of
the spectrum. Adding 2-4kHz to the lead
singer won't make them stand out - it will
make a MESS. Not to mention reduced
overall gain.
JackA
April 25th 16, 03:15 AM
On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 7:26:14 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 23/04/2016 05:42, JackA wrote:
>
> > One last thing, I feel you reach a point when mastering (enhancing) where it's difficult to tell what "sounds" better. That's when I concentrate on vocals, such as, is it easier to comprehend the lyrics.
> >
> If your main aim is to produce clear and understandable lyrics from a
> source where they are hard to distinguish, then a bandpass filter
> between 750Hz or so and 3kHz is the way to go, as the telephone
> companies found out over a century ago.
Would probably work well with you "guitar" playing.
Jack
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.
Trevor
April 25th 16, 10:59 AM
On 22/04/2016 12:45 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> Trevor wrote:
>> Which is all that matters to you of course, but I don't see the point of
>> a low quality 8 track myself.
>
> The point was availability and cost.
Exactly, not buying one is definitely easier and cheaper.
>> If all I needed Low-Fi, stereo was
>> adequate, and if I needed multi-track for real recordings, Low-Fi was
>> pointless to me.
>> Actually the ONLY cassettes I ever played were in the car, or on a
>> walkman. Even for my personal vinyl recordings at home I used a R2R.
>>
>
> Have you ever heard anything done on an 8-track cassette?
Sadly yes. A friend had one. No way would I spend my money on one.
> It sounded
> better than my old consumer reel to reel (1/4 track stereo) machine.
Which only means you had a pretty poor R2R machine, Good ones were
available for less than 8 track cassette machines, which meant you could
have 8 poor tracks, or 2 good ones for a similar price.
>
> It obviously didn't sound like an Ampex.
Right, or a Studer or a Revox, or an Otari, or a Tascam R2R or almost
any half way decent R2R for that matter, including the better ones from
Akai or Sony.
Trevor.
Trevor
April 25th 16, 11:04 AM
On 22/04/2016 4:49 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 22/04/2016 06:17, JackA wrote:
>>
>> ... but as Doug Sax claimed, once man had a better handle on mastering
>> digital sound, CDs may be greatly accepted.
And were even before due to all their other benefits.
>>
> Even the earliest CDs had much better sound quality and were less liable
> to damage during playback and transport than the same release on cassette.
>
> As far as the record companies were concerned at the time, CDs were
> cheaper to produce
Nope, far more expensive to start with.
> and initially were harder to copy than cassettes.
Not at all, copying CD to cassette was no harder than cassette to
cassette, but gave far better results. Almost everybody did it for their
car tapes here before CD players in cars became commonly available.
Trevor.
On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:04:20 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> On 22/04/2016 4:49 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> > On 22/04/2016 06:17, JackA wrote:
> >>
> >> ... but as Doug Sax claimed, once man had a better handle on mastering
> >> digital sound, CDs may be greatly accepted.
>
> And were even before due to all their other benefits.
>
> >>
> > Even the earliest CDs had much better sound quality and were less liable
> > to damage during playback and transport than the same release on cassette.
> >
> > As far as the record companies were concerned at the time, CDs were
> > cheaper to produce
>
> Nope, far more expensive to start with.
>
>
> > and initially were harder to copy than cassettes.
>
> Not at all, copying CD to cassette was no harder than cassette to
> cassette, but gave far better results. Almost everybody did it for their
> car tapes here before CD players in cars became commonly available.
>
> Trevor.
_______
I had to read that last item several times
to avoid the same misunderstanding. And
what he meant what that in the 1980s and
early 1990s CD duplicators(and PCs with
rip and burn capacity) were not publically
available as they are today. My church has
two towers for duplicating purposes.
On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:04:20 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> On 22/04/2016 4:49 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> > On 22/04/2016 06:17, JackA wrote:
> >>
> >> ... but as Doug Sax claimed, once man had a better handle on mastering
> >> digital sound, CDs may be greatly accepted.
>
> And were even before due to all their other benefits.
>
> >>
> > Even the earliest CDs had much better sound quality and were less liable
> > to damage during playback and transport than the same release on cassette.
> >
> > As far as the record companies were concerned at the time, CDs were
> > cheaper to produce
>
> Nope, far more expensive to start with.
>
>
> > and initially were harder to copy than cassettes.
>
> Not at all, copying CD to cassette was no harder than cassette to
> cassette, but gave far better results. Almost everybody did it for their
> car tapes here before CD players in cars became commonly available.
>
> Trevor.
______
I had to read that last item several times
to avoid the same misunderstanding. He
was referring to making copes of CDs. W
hat he meant what that in the 1980s and
early 1990s CD duplicators(and PCs with
rip and burn capacity) were not publically
available as they are today - outside
of major studios and duplicating houses.
My church has two towers for duplicating
purposes.
JackA
April 26th 16, 04:40 PM
On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:04:20 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> On 22/04/2016 4:49 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> > On 22/04/2016 06:17, JackA wrote:
> >>
> >> ... but as Doug Sax claimed, once man had a better handle on mastering
> >> digital sound, CDs may be greatly accepted.
>
> And were even before due to all their other benefits.
Like, Bonus Tracks, not included on the vinyl counterpart!?
Jack
>
> >>
> > Even the earliest CDs had much better sound quality and were less liable
> > to damage during playback and transport than the same release on cassette.
> >
> > As far as the record companies were concerned at the time, CDs were
> > cheaper to produce
>
> Nope, far more expensive to start with.
>
>
> > and initially were harder to copy than cassettes.
>
> Not at all, copying CD to cassette was no harder than cassette to
> cassette, but gave far better results. Almost everybody did it for their
> car tapes here before CD players in cars became commonly available.
>
> Trevor.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 11:40:46 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:04:20 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> > On 22/04/2016 4:49 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> > > On 22/04/2016 06:17, JackA wrote:
> > >>
> > >> ... but as Doug Sax claimed, once man had a better handle on mastering
> > >> digital sound, CDs may be greatly accepted.
> >
> > And were even before due to all their other benefits.
>
> Like, Bonus Tracks, not included on the vinyl counterpart!?
>
> Jack
>
> >
> > >>
> > > Even the earliest CDs had much better sound quality and were less liable
> > > to damage during playback and transport than the same release on cassette.
> > >
> > > As far as the record companies were concerned at the time, CDs were
> > > cheaper to produce
> >
> > Nope, far more expensive to start with.
> >
> >
> > > and initially were harder to copy than cassettes.
> >
> > Not at all, copying CD to cassette was no harder than cassette to
> > cassette, but gave far better results. Almost everybody did it for their
> > car tapes here before CD players in cars became commonly available.
> >
> > Trevor.
In response to your top-post, I
could care less about bonus tracks
or a cm. thick booklet of liner
notes. I just want the original
sound, unf___ked with.
JackA
April 26th 16, 06:56 PM
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 11:45:34 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 11:40:46 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> > On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:04:20 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> > > On 22/04/2016 4:49 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> > > > On 22/04/2016 06:17, JackA wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> ... but as Doug Sax claimed, once man had a better handle on mastering
> > > >> digital sound, CDs may be greatly accepted.
> > >
> > > And were even before due to all their other benefits.
> >
> > Like, Bonus Tracks, not included on the vinyl counterpart!?
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > Even the earliest CDs had much better sound quality and were less liable
> > > > to damage during playback and transport than the same release on cassette.
> > > >
> > > > As far as the record companies were concerned at the time, CDs were
> > > > cheaper to produce
> > >
> > > Nope, far more expensive to start with.
> > >
> > >
> > > > and initially were harder to copy than cassettes.
> > >
> > > Not at all, copying CD to cassette was no harder than cassette to
> > > cassette, but gave far better results. Almost everybody did it for their
> > > car tapes here before CD players in cars became commonly available.
> > >
> > > Trevor.
>
> In response to your top-post, I
> could care less about bonus tracks
> or a cm. thick booklet of liner
> notes. I just want the original
> sound, unf___ked with.
What "original" sound? What you heard on AM radio? What you heard on FM radio? What you heard on 45? What you heard on LP? What you heard on Quadraphonic LP?
What you heard on.....?
See my point?
And a primer coming up where some peak trimming improves sound. Stay tuned.
Jack
geoff
April 26th 16, 10:37 PM
On 27/04/2016 3:45 a.m., wrote:
>> r.
> In response to your top-post, I
> could care less about bonus tracks
> or a cm. thick booklet of liner
> notes. I just want the original
> sound, unf___ked with.
So don't buy a remastered version then, or audition it first to ensure
that the remastering complies with your preconception of what it should be.
The point of remastering is to improve upon the first efforts which may
have been limited (or even compromised) by the technology of the era
when done. In the previous millennium, and early this one, some
remastering was not as good as it can be today.
Your hobby-horse does not require remastering to achieve, and is not a
necessary part of remastering at all. But if you haven't got it yet, I
guess you never will.
geoff
JackA
April 26th 16, 10:56 PM
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 5:38:00 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 27/04/2016 3:45 a.m., wrote:
> >> r.
> > In response to your top-post, I
> > could care less about bonus tracks
> > or a cm. thick booklet of liner
> > notes. I just want the original
> > sound, unf___ked with.
>
> So don't buy a remastered version then, or audition it first to ensure
> that the remastering complies with your preconception of what it should be.
>
> The point of remastering is to improve upon the first efforts which may
> have been limited (or even compromised) by the technology of the era
> when done. In the previous millennium, and early this one, some
> remastering was not as good as it can be today.
Well said.
Jack
>
> Your hobby-horse does not require remastering to achieve, and is not a
> necessary part of remastering at all. But if you haven't got it yet, I
> guess you never will.
>
> geoff
JackA
April 27th 16, 12:51 AM
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 5:38:00 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 27/04/2016 3:45 a.m., wrote:
> >> r.
> > In response to your top-post, I
> > could care less about bonus tracks
> > or a cm. thick booklet of liner
> > notes. I just want the original
> > sound, unf___ked with.
>
> So don't buy a remastered version then, or audition it first to ensure
> that the remastering complies with your preconception of what it should be.
>
> The point of remastering is to improve upon the first efforts which may
> have been limited (or even compromised) by the technology of the era
> when done. In the previous millennium, and early this one, some
> remastering was not as good as it can be today.
I'll agree with him to some degree.
Like when they remixed this Deep Purple song, sounds way different than it sounded on vinyl! Edited, I like "damnit!" ending...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/smokeonwater.mp3
Jack
>
> Your hobby-horse does not require remastering to achieve, and is not a
> necessary part of remastering at all. But if you haven't got it yet, I
> guess you never will.
>
> geoff
geoff wrote: "On 27/04/2016 3:45 a.m., wrote:
>> r.
> In response to your top-post, I
> could care less about bonus tracks
> or a cm. thick booklet of liner
> notes. I just want the original
> sound, unf___ked with.
So don't buy a remastered version then, or audition it first to ensure
that the remastering complies with your preconception of what it should be.
The point of remastering is to improve upon the first efforts which may
have been limited (or even compromised) by the technology of the era
when done. In the previous millennium, and early this one, some
remastering was not as good as it can be today."
____
Those maybe the noble points of remastering,
but, as proven by both listening and by DAW
analysis, that is not always what is done and
sold as "remastered"
____
"Your hobby-horse does not require remastering to achieve, and is not a
necessary part of remastering at all. But if you haven't got it yet, I
guess you never will.
geoff "
"My" hobby-horse? Browse through the
original-vs-remaster threads on the Hoffman
and Discogs forums, for once, and see how
many music fans actually share "my" hobby
horse. Expand your horizons a little, Geoff,
and see what's really going on in both sides
of the music business, not just on the
production side.
geoff
April 27th 16, 04:43 AM
On 27/04/2016 1:37 p.m., wrote:
> "My" hobby-horse? Browse through the original-vs-remaster threads on
> the Hoffman and Discogs forums, for once, and see how many music fans
> actually share "my" hobby horse. Expand your horizons a little, Geoff,
> and see what's really going on in both sides of the music business,
> not just on the production side.
I think you'll find that I and most others here loath hyper-compression
just as much or more than you do. The difference is we know that it is
not an unavoidable attribute of remastering, or for that matter mixing,
and do not automatically assume that anything remastered suffers from it.
Myself, I just lost a client (a, shudder, country singer) for whom I
would not make one of her tracks that I recorded/mixed/mastered for her
sound "louder, just like the country radio DJs make it".
geoff
geoff wrote: "Myself, I just lost a client (a, shudder, country singer) for whom I
would not make one of her tracks that I recorded/mixed/mastered for her
sound "louder, just like the country radio DJs make it". "
Yeah, too bad that bug has infected that genre. Equally
disturbing is the infusion of RAP into country. The late
Hank Williams and George Jones would shudder!
I enjoy music from all genres geoff - exclusively, if
you get my drift. ;)
None
April 27th 16, 12:09 PM
< thekma @ dumb****sRtheckmah . shortbus . edu> wrote in message
news:a987936f-8817-485c-b134-
> "My" hobby-horse? Browse through the
> original-vs-remaster threads on the Hoffman
> and Discogs forums, for once, and see how
> many music fans actually share "my" hobby
> horse.
Yeah, go see how Dumb **** Kozicki was beating the rotted corpse of
his hobbyhorse, before his sorry trolling ass was kicked to the curb
and banned for being such a clueless retard. A never-ending lifetime
of utter dumb****ery. Why would anyone want to browse through that
pile of hobby-horse-****?
None
April 27th 16, 12:22 PM
< thekkkhhhmaaaah! > wrote:
> geoff wrote: "On 27/04/2016 3:45 a.m., wrote:
>>But if you haven't got it yet, I guess you never will.
> "My" hobby-horse? Browse through the
> original-vs-remaster threads on the Hoffman
> and Discogs forums,
.... to see the proof that the shortbus dumb**** didn't get it then,
doesn't get it now, and certainly never will. FDFCKWAFA.
JackA
April 27th 16, 12:52 PM
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 9:38:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> geoff wrote: "On 27/04/2016 3:45 a.m., wrote:
> >> r.
> > In response to your top-post, I
> > could care less about bonus tracks
> > or a cm. thick booklet of liner
> > notes. I just want the original
> > sound, unf___ked with.
>
> So don't buy a remastered version then, or audition it first to ensure
> that the remastering complies with your preconception of what it should be.
>
> The point of remastering is to improve upon the first efforts which may
> have been limited (or even compromised) by the technology of the era
> when done. In the previous millennium, and early this one, some
> remastering was not as good as it can be today."
> ____
> Those maybe the noble points of remastering,
> but, as proven by both listening and by DAW
> analysis, that is not always what is done and
> sold as "remastered"
> ____
>
> "Your hobby-horse does not require remastering to achieve, and is not a
> necessary part of remastering at all. But if you haven't got it yet, I
> guess you never will.
>
> geoff "
>
> "My" hobby-horse? Browse through the
> original-vs-remaster threads on the Hoffman
> and Discogs forums, for once, and see how
> many music fans actually share "my" hobby
> horse.
Dear Lord, not Hoffman's forum!
Like Trump would say - clueless!!
Jack
Expand your horizons a little, Geoff,
> and see what's really going on in both sides
> of the music business, not just on the
> production side.
JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
Dear Lord, not Hoffman's forum!
Like Trump would say - clueless!!
Jack
- show quoted text -"
Clueless? Not entirely. The folks on
the Hoffman form actually buy and listen
to music. And they don't like some of
what they're hearing. And analysis backs
that up, Jack. You may like super-
compressed, super loud music, and might
even mistake it for remastering, but
most of us know better.
JackA
April 27th 16, 01:33 PM
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 8:18:47 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
> Dear Lord, not Hoffman's forum!
> Like Trump would say - clueless!!
>
> Jack
> - show quoted text -"
>
>
> Clueless? Not entirely. The folks on
> the Hoffman form actually buy and listen
> to music. And they don't like some of
> what they're hearing. And analysis backs
> that up, Jack. You may like super-
> compressed, super loud music, and might
> even mistake it for remastering, but
> most of us know better.
When, I say, when those Hoffman fans address Steve's MCA work, rather than cheer-leading DCC label, THEN I'll believe they are telling the truth!!
Hoffman's work is just like MyPillow, Made in USA garbage. Pay Americans well and they'll lie to your face, while promoting ill products.
Jack
>
> I think you'll find that I and most others here loath hyper-compression
> just as much or more than you do.
right...
buy yourself an expander, adjust the controls per your taste.
problem solved.
JackA
April 27th 16, 04:13 PM
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 8:41:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> >
> > I think you'll find that I and most others here loath hyper-compression
> > just as much or more than you do.
>
>
> right...
>
> buy yourself an expander, adjust the controls per your taste.
>
> problem solved.
And he doesn't even believe in a graphic equalizer that would tarnish the "original sound"!
Jack
Trevor
April 28th 16, 10:50 AM
On 27/04/2016 10:41 PM, wrote:
>> I think you'll find that I and most others here loath hyper-compression
>> just as much or more than you do.
>
>
> right...
>
> buy yourself an expander, adjust the controls per your taste.
>
> problem solved.
If you think you can properly fix hyper-compression that easily you are
as thick as Thekma. My biggest beef is the huge amount of clipping that
is considered normal these days. You can get plug-ins to try and *guess*
what might have been there before it was clipped, but using only 20dB of
a 96dB dynamic range and then clipping just to make it sound louder than
everybody else is just plain stupid IMO. But unlike Thekma, I understand
who is usually pulling the strings. I have delivered good sounding mixes
that were ruined because the client thought they weren't finished until
someone else "mastered" them to death. But not my problem after that. I
even get to listen to my mixes if I want, rather than the commercial
release, and do :-)
Trevor.
Trevor wrote: "If you think you can properly fix hyper-compression that easily you are
as thick as Thekma. My biggest beef is the huge amount of clipping that
is considered normal these days. You can get plug-ins to try and *guess*
what might have been there before it was clipped, but using only 20dB of
a 96dB dynamic range and then clipping just to make it sound louder than
everybody else is just plain stupid IMO. But unlike Thekma, I understand
who is usually pulling the strings. I have delivered good sounding mixes
that were ruined because the client thought they weren't finished until
someone else "mastered" them to death. But not my problem after that. I
even get to listen to my mixes if I want, rather than the commercial
release, and do :-)
Trevor. "
________
"Pulling the strings?" I know who's pulling
the strings Trevor. You mentioned them
broadly toward the end of your reply. They
include artists, producers, and labels.
And I also applaud geoff for having the
principles to decline a project over such
a request. Unfortunately, what is at the
root of all this nonsense is MONEY. And
a mix that is even just perceptibly quieter
than all the others auditioned by A&R
will be skipped over, even if it does
sound better.
And something I cannot control is how
Google Groups and/or Usenet truncates
my handle: "thekma(NROCKS).
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 6:42:04 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Trevor wrote: "If you think you can properly fix hyper-compression that easily you are
> as thick as Thekma. My biggest beef is the huge amount of clipping that
> is considered normal these days. You can get plug-ins to try and *guess*
> what might have been there before it was clipped, but using only 20dB of
> a 96dB dynamic range and then clipping just to make it sound louder than
> everybody else is just plain stupid IMO.
>
I know it is not that easy to UNdo compression and clipping.
But spending time slaving over a hot DAW working it constructivly is better than whining about it on the Internet.
In fact, if it is such a big issue to many, he might invent a new plug in and get rich.
wrote: "In fact, if it is such a big issue to many,..."
Google over-compression or loudness in
music, and the thousands of hits you get
should reveal how "big an issue" it is.
Are you an engineer(mix or mastering)
or a label rep?
JackA
April 28th 16, 03:47 PM
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 9:08:40 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> wrote: "In fact, if it is such a big issue to many,..."
>
>
> Google over-compression or loudness in
> music, and the thousands of hits you get
> should reveal how "big an issue" it is.
"Hits"? Can you name a few?
Past music - I see no real reason for over-compressing alarm. If anything, it's isolated to more recent "hits" than past hits. Most of what I found on CD of past music - 60's, 70's, etc., has less than proper loudness.
Jack
>
>
> Are you an engineer(mix or mastering)
> or a label rep?
JackA wrote: ""Hits"? Can you name a few? "
D'OHHH!!
By hits that means returned search
results on Google or other search
engine. Come on, Jack!...
JackA
April 28th 16, 07:47 PM
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 10:59:18 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA wrote: ""Hits"? Can you name a few? "
>
> D'OHHH!!
>
> By hits that means returned search
> results on Google or other search
> engine. Come on, Jack!...
Someone else claims it's loud, and you misinterpret...
http://www.loudmastering.com/
:-)
Jack
geoff
April 28th 16, 10:30 PM
On 28/04/2016 10:42 p.m., wrote:
>
>
> And something I cannot control is how
> Google Groups and/or Usenet truncates
> my handle: "thekma(NROCKS).
But one thing you could easily control is what newsreader you use.
Your choice.
geoff
John Williamson
April 28th 16, 10:49 PM
On 28/04/2016 22:30, geoff wrote:
> On 28/04/2016 10:42 p.m., wrote:
>>
>>
>> And something I cannot control is how
>> Google Groups and/or Usenet truncates
>> my handle: "thekma(NROCKS).
>
> But one thing you could easily control is what newsreader you use. Your
> choice.
>
As he's using Google groups to post, he has very little choice other
than use their broken interface or get a real news server account and
learning to use a proper newsreader. It is, I believe, possible but
difficult to use Google groups data with a real newsreader, but it's a
PITA as GG keep chaning their API.
That's assuming the owner of the computer he uses lets him install
software. ;-)
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Nil[_2_]
April 29th 16, 04:53 AM
On 28 Apr 2016, John Williamson >
wrote in rec.audio.pro:
> As he's using Google groups to post, he has very little choice
> other than use their broken interface or get a real news server
> account and learning to use a proper newsreader.
It's quite possible to use Google Groups and quote the prior post in
a conventional, understandable and readable way. The method has been
explained to Thickma multiple times, but he chooses to ignore it or
is incapable of following simple directions.
> It is, I believe, possible but difficult to use Google groups data
> with a real newsreader, but it's a PITA as GG keep chaning their
> API.
It's possible to treat "real" (that is, non-Usenet) groups as an
email list. I don't know if you can do that with Usenet groups, but
it would be unwieldy. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure there is no other
way to use Google Groups than to use their web interface, in
particular, you can't use a real newsreader.
Trevor
April 29th 16, 05:54 AM
On 28/04/2016 10:42 PM, wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 6:42:04 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>> Trevor wrote: "If you think you can properly fix hyper-compression that easily you are
>> as thick as Thekma. My biggest beef is the huge amount of clipping that
>> is considered normal these days. You can get plug-ins to try and *guess*
>> what might have been there before it was clipped, but using only 20dB of
>> a 96dB dynamic range and then clipping just to make it sound louder than
>> everybody else is just plain stupid IMO.
>>
>
> I know it is not that easy to UNdo compression and clipping.
Read *impossible* to do completely.
> But spending time slaving over a hot DAW working it constructivly is better than whining about it on the Internet.
That's true at least.
> In fact, if it is such a big issue to many, he might invent a new plug in and get rich.
Firstly no-one can ever do it completely, and Thekma would be the last
person who could do it at all. :-)
But I do agree with him that it should not be necessary in the first place.
Trevor.
Trevor
April 29th 16, 05:57 AM
On 29/04/2016 1:53 PM, Nil wrote:
> It's possible to treat "real" (that is, non-Usenet) groups as an
> email list. I don't know if you can do that with Usenet groups, but
> it would be unwieldy. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure there is no other
> way to use Google Groups than to use their web interface, in
> particular, you can't use a real newsreader.
Since there are free news servers, why would you want to use GG at all?
Trevor.
Nil[_2_]
April 29th 16, 06:22 AM
On 29 Apr 2016, Trevor > wrote in rec.audio.pro:
> Since there are free news servers, why would you want to use GG at
> all?
I wouldn't, but I do sometimes when I'm at a computer that's not mine
or can't run a newsreader.
Trever wrote: "Firstly no-one can ever do it completely,
and Thekma would be the last who could do it"
I never assumed to know your capabilities
so DON't make ASSumptions about mine!
Trevor wrote: "Since there are free news servers,
why would you want to use GG at all? "
Name THREE 'free' ones.
Scott Dorsey
April 29th 16, 01:24 PM
In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 29/04/2016 1:53 PM, Nil wrote:
>> It's possible to treat "real" (that is, non-Usenet) groups as an
>> email list. I don't know if you can do that with Usenet groups, but
>> it would be unwieldy. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure there is no other
>> way to use Google Groups than to use their web interface, in
>> particular, you can't use a real newsreader.
>
>Since there are free news servers, why would you want to use GG at all?
For a long time, one might have wanted to use Google Groups because of the
long retention of archived messages. Then they broke the indexing and now
that's useless also.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
John Williamson
April 29th 16, 02:52 PM
On 29/04/2016 10:57, wrote:
> Trevor wrote: "Since there are free news servers,
> why would you want to use GG at all? "
>
> Name THREE 'free' ones.
>
news.tornevall.net, www.eternal-september.org, and any of the ones on
this page:-
http://www.freeusenetnews.com/
I happily pay ten Euros a year to news.indivdual.net for their spam
blocking function.
For obvious reasons, free servers tend to be for text only groups, if
you need binary groups, you'll have to pay.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
JackA
April 29th 16, 03:34 PM
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 9:52:13 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 29/04/2016 10:57, wrote:
> > Trevor wrote: "Since there are free news servers,
> > why would you want to use GG at all? "
> >
> > Name THREE 'free' ones.
> >
> news.tornevall.net, www.eternal-september.org, and any of the ones on
> this page:-
>
> http://www.freeusenetnews.com/
>
> I happily pay ten Euros a year to news.indivdual.net for their spam
> blocking function.
>
> For obvious reasons, free servers tend to be for text only groups, if
> you need binary groups, you'll have to pay.
So much for "free".
Jack
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.
JackA
April 29th 16, 03:40 PM
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 5:57:46 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Trevor wrote: "Since there are free news servers,
> why would you want to use GG at all? "
>
> Name THREE 'free' ones.
Easynews offered a web-based forum for (pay) subscribers, but for usenet binaries only! No need for usenet based software.
Just thought I'd toss that in!
Jack
Phil W
April 29th 16, 05:06 PM
Trevor:
> On 29/04/2016 1:53 PM, Nil wrote:
>> It's possible to treat "real" (that is, non-Usenet) groups as an
>> email list. I don't know if you can do that with Usenet groups, but
>> it would be unwieldy. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure there is no other
>> way to use Google Groups than to use their web interface, in
>> particular, you can't use a real newsreader.
>
> Since there are free news servers, why would you want to use GG at all?
Well, because... maybe, it would be too easy to use stuff that´s easy to
get, proven and used by many others, who don´t refuse to understand
anything?!
On the other hand, I don´t care, which method thekma uses to spread his spam
here, as it goes straight to a filter...
John Williamson
April 29th 16, 05:12 PM
On 29/04/2016 15:34, JackA wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 9:52:13 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> For obvious reasons, free servers tend to be for text only groups, if
>> you need binary groups, you'll have to pay.
>
> So much for "free".
>
If you want a truly free news server, it's not all that hard to set up
your own.
Then you will find out just how much it costs in money and time to run
one... Bandwidth and your time will be your major expenses, as the
computer you need is fairly basic by modern standards, though you will
need at least a gigabit internet connection both ways, depending on how
many users you have.
TANSTAAFL.
You can offset these costs by asking for donations towards the cost of
running the service, of course, which all the free ones do, counting on
enough people being willing to pay a few dollars a year for the service
to pay the running costs.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
JackA
April 29th 16, 06:14 PM
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 12:12:56 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 29/04/2016 15:34, JackA wrote:
> > On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 9:52:13 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> For obvious reasons, free servers tend to be for text only groups, if
> >> you need binary groups, you'll have to pay.
> >
> > So much for "free".
> >
> If you want a truly free news server, it's not all that hard to set up
> your own.
>
> Then you will find out just how much it costs in money and time to run
> one... Bandwidth and your time will be your major expenses, as the
> computer you need is fairly basic by modern standards, though you will
> need at least a gigabit internet connection both ways, depending on how
> many users you have.
>
> TANSTAAFL.
>
> You can offset these costs by asking for donations towards the cost of
> running the service, of course, which all the free ones do, counting on
> enough people being willing to pay a few dollars a year for the service
> to pay the running costs.
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.
Early on, you could set-up a FTP client and it could be like these new "clouds". Others could upload and/or download!!
However, I do believe the are off-limits with some cable internet providers, like Comcast.
Jack
None
April 30th 16, 12:25 AM
< thekma-thekma-thekma! @ omnibus-brevis.k12 > wrote in message
...
> And something I cannot control is how
> Google Groups and/or Usenet truncates
> my handle: "thekma(NROCKS).
Countless other users of Gurgle Groups seem to have been able to
figure this out, and some of them are pretty thick-headed. It's not
really that hard. But in the years you've been using google's
"Dumb****'s Interface To Usenet," you've never been able to figure it
out. And you are still utterly unable to respond coherently to a post
without totally ****ing up the formatting, and screwing up the thread.
This is not complicated stuff, but you seem to be so profoundly
moronic that, even after years, you haven't even a semblance of a
clue.
And you blame Google! That's even more hilarious. You're too stupid to
figure out Google, so it's their fault. And you're the one who chooses
to use Google. Dumb****! It's as if you're trying to use a coffee mug
to slice cheese, and it's not working, so you blame the mug rather
than picking up a knife. Clearly, you're deeply dumb****ed.
None
April 30th 16, 12:25 AM
< thick-mama @ retardedgoofball.org > wrote in message
...
> Google over-compression or loudness in
> music, and the thousands of hits you get
> should reveal how "big an issue" it is.
Classic litany of a Usenet crank riding a hobbyhorse:
Google my hobbyhorse! The number of hits will prove ...
That you're right? That you're not a crank obsessing about your
hobbyhorse? What?
It proves nothing. It's a number, and by your own admission on several
occasions, you can't understand numbers. But it does confirm what
everyone knows: you're a crank, and you have a dead hobbyhorse to
flog, and you'd be unable to match wits with a garden slug.
None
April 30th 16, 12:25 AM
< theckmaaah @ dumb****sRtheckmaaaaah . com > wrote in message
...
> Trever wrote: "Firstly no-one can ever do it completely,
> and Thekma would be the last who could do it"
>
> I never assumed to know your capabilities
> so DON't make ASSumptions about mine!
Nobody is assuming anything. A simple deduction, from reading your
posts, is that you are incapable of writing the DSP code for the
imaginary expander that's under discussion. By your own admission, you
are unable to read numbers, and you don't understand what "1 + 1 = 2"
means. Not assumptions, but rather your own posts. And despite years
of patient (sometimes) explanation, you still have no idea of the
issues involved with compression. You keep coming back here to confirm
that point: you don't get it, and you never will. And Gurgle Group's
dumbed-down newsgroup interface for dummies is something that's
incomprehensible to your.
So it's a certainty that you will not be creating the expander. No
assumptions. Clear deduction from reading your posting history, which
seems to be specifically designed to prove that you're a dumb****. The
notion that you'd create an expanders is hilarious, li'l buddy.
None
April 30th 16, 12:37 AM
> wrote in message
...
> Trevor wrote: "Since there are free news servers,
> why would you want to use GG at all? "
>
> Name THREE 'free' ones.
Why the **** would you need three? And why do you think you deserve it
for free? It wouldn't matter, you would definitely find a way to be
too stupid to figure it out.
None
April 30th 16, 12:40 AM
< chrissie-go-sickie @ vomit.com> wrote in message
news:f0cc22d4-6605-403d-a36f-> "Pulling the strings?" I know who's
pulling
> the strings Trevor. You mentioned them
> broadly toward the end of your reply. They
> include artists, producers, and labels.
> Are you an engineer(mix or mastering) or a label rep?
You always circle back to this dumb****ery and vomit it up here. One
of the clearest proofs that you are utterly unable to understand is
that, even after years of patient explanation, understanding never
lasts for more than a second or two, before you're right back where
you started, a slack-jawed retard in a dunce cap.
david gourley[_2_]
May 2nd 16, 03:22 AM
geoff > said...news:PqOdnRiiPLmaHL_KnZ2dnUU7-
:
> On 28/04/2016 10:42 p.m., wrote:
>>
>>
>> And something I cannot control is how
>> Google Groups and/or Usenet truncates
>> my handle: "thekma(NROCKS).
>
> But one thing you could easily control is what newsreader you use.
> Your choice.
>
> geoff
>
+1, and it's not like he hasn't been told that several times already !
david
JackA
May 4th 16, 01:03 AM
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 7:40:53 PM UTC-4, None wrote:
> < chrissie-go-sickie @ vomit.com> wrote in message
> news:f0cc22d4-6605-403d-a36f-> "Pulling the strings?" I know who's
> pulling
> > the strings Trevor. You mentioned them
> > broadly toward the end of your reply. They
> > include artists, producers, and labels.
>
> > Are you an engineer(mix or mastering) or a label rep?
>
> You always circle back to this dumb****ery and vomit it up here. One
> of the clearest proofs that you are utterly unable to understand is
> that, even after years of patient explanation, understanding never
> lasts for more than a second or two, before you're right back where
> you started, a slack-jawed retard in a dunce cap.
Scott did bring a decent point about controlling recorded spikes, say, caused by a drummer, where you remove those spikes and change increase the RMS value, but also increase tape noise. THAT, is when a professional recording engineer would stop the recording and resolve it then, rather than fix that problem, while creating another, after the fact.
Jack
JackA wrote: "Scott did bring a decent point about controlling recorded spikes, say, caused by a drummer, where you remove those
spikes and change increase the RMS value, but also increase tape noise. THAT, is when a professional recording engineer would
stop the recording and resolve it then, rather than fix that problem, while creating another, after the fact. "
Start with the drummer. A good one controls his/her
intensity.
JackA
May 4th 16, 12:32 PM
On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 8:27:13 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "Scott did bring a decent point about controlling recorded spikes, say, caused by a drummer, where you remove those
> spikes and change increase the RMS value, but also increase tape noise. THAT, is when a professional recording engineer would
> stop the recording and resolve it then, rather than fix that problem, while creating another, after the fact. "
>
>
> Start with the drummer. A good one controls his/her
> intensity.
True! Buddy Rich is my favorite *wink*.
OT: Anyway, found a Bob Seger CD set at Wall-Mart, it's "exclusive". What caught my ear was the studio talk preceding Ramblin' Gamblin' Man. Sadly, the waveform is a bit brick-walled throughout, plus drop-outs in audio.
Never did think much of Capitol Records LLC, or whatever its name, always flawed recordings. They should demolish that Capitol building in Calif. and put a burger stand there. Nothing of value anymore.
Jack
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.