Mastering Too Loud

[JackA]

While I do master on the loud side, I look at other waveforms and see brick-walling taking place. Anyway, Capitol reissues some grotesque audio, assume their personal appearance matches their audio. Some binary flaws (common with Capitol) heard here in this "Take #2", The Bob Seger System (1969) (toned down)...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/ramblinman.mp3

Jack

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 10:03:27 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> While I do master on the loud side, I look at other waveforms and see brick-walling taking place. Anyway, Capitol reissues some grotesque audio, assume their personal appearance matches their audio. Some binary flaws (common with Capitol) heard here in this "Take #2", The Bob Seger System (1969) (toned down)...
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/ramblinman.mp3
>
> Jack

I'm amazed (though I shouldn't be), that no one, so far, can tell me what is different about this Stereo mix than what is commonly heard. Beatles fans?
My GUESS, this was/is typically mixed in what I refer to as lopsided stereo, vocals on one stereo side, music on the other. It strongly supports my theory, people don't actually listen to music!

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA: A thread titled "Mastering Too Loud" is
likely to be ignored on an audio PRODUCTION
newsgroup.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 12-05-2016 13:11, JackA wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 10:03:27 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:

>> While I do master on the loud side, I look at other waveforms and see brick-walling taking place. Anyway, Capitol reissues some grotesque audio, assume their personal appearance matches their audio. Some binary flaws (common with Capitol) heard here in this "Take #2", The Bob Seger System (1969) (toned down)...
>> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/ramblinman.mp3

>> Jack

> I'm amazed (though I shouldn't be), that no one, so far, can tell me
> what is different about this Stereo mix than what is commonly heard.

Well, after listening to a few of your mix attempts they are perhaps low
in priority with some listeners.

> Beatles fans? My GUESS, this was/is typically mixed in what I refer to
> as lopsided stereo, vocals on one stereo side, music on the other.

That was never intended as stereophonic, it is a two channel multitrack.

> It strongly supports my theory, people don't actually listen to music!

My theory has become that you only ever post here and never read as this
issue has been explained to you numerous times.

> Jack

- Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

Peter Larsen wrote: "That was never intended as stereophonic, it is a two channel multitrack."


But it was MARKETED as such. JackA should get prime seats
at a concert or orchestra in a purpose-built venue. He'll find out
what "stereo" is quite quickly. Stereo is all around us - not
limited to two, or four, or eight speakers, or headphones.


A Marketing dept. can convince consumers that a shiny brown
steaming mound of **** is "vibrant stereo" or "gloriously
remastered", even if what was really done to it was otherwise,
and those consumers will snatch it up as canonical.

[John Williamson]

On 12/05/2016 14:15, wrote:
> JackA: A thread titled "Mastering Too Loud" is
> likely to be ignored on an audio PRODUCTION
> newsgroup.
>
Most threads by JackAss will not be seen by many in this group, due to
people's killfile settings.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 12-05-2016 14:31, wrote:

> Peter Larsen wrote: "That was never intended as stereophonic, it is a two channel multitrack."

> But it was MARKETED as such.

This is correct. What happened was that hardware sales overtook record
equipment and almost overnight there was a gazillion 2 X 4 to 8 watt
stereo systems and no software and the pinstripes released the
recordings as stereo because they didn't know what stereo is all about.
Pan pots were quite slow to creep into over the counter mixers ...

> JackA should get prime seats
> at a concert or orchestra in a purpose-built venue. He'll find out
> what "stereo" is quite quickly. Stereo is all around us - not
> limited to two, or four, or eight speakers, or headphones.

This too is correct. Anyone interested in audio should join a chamber
music society and listen to some chamber music.

> A Marketing dept. can convince consumers that a shiny brown
> steaming mound of **** is "vibrant stereo" or "gloriously
> remastered", even if what was really done to it was otherwise,
> and those consumers will snatch it up as canonical.

*digitally remastered* is some of the time a good idea and some
of the time proof that a very skilled listener that mixed great records
has a shift of the audiotory threshold, multiband processing can be
helpful in terms of lifting out treble detail and getting it above an
elevated high range threshold.

Love your ABBA vinyl and similar good 1970'ties products, treble sweet-
and smoothness sometimes gets sweet and sour, with soy even, in
remaSTering and the digital remasterings may not sound as good as the
original versions.

And that of course makes the high-end crowd rush to the record stores
and lament digital distortion, even though it is no fault of the
technology.

If you are some day bored, then take a look at the audio envelope on the
LOVE CD .... hard limiting at -6 dB on one of the tracks so someone wise
undid an error of judgement and got the musical context right. Now if
only they had not removed the real room tone with whatever digital NR
they used .... less NR had been better. Of course, it probably was the
hard of hearing geezer that saved the musical level differences on taht
album ... the willingness to actually listen is no less important than
the threshold :)

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 9:15:58 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA: A thread titled "Mastering Too Loud" is
> likely to be ignored on an audio PRODUCTION
> newsgroup.

This was meant to be a follow-up to my "Noisy Tapes To Mix" post.

Thanks and Sorry.

Jack

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 9:19:12 AM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 12-05-2016 13:11, JackA wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 10:03:27 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
>
> >> While I do master on the loud side, I look at other waveforms and see brick-walling taking place. Anyway, Capitol reissues some grotesque audio, assume their personal appearance matches their audio. Some binary flaws (common with Capitol) heard here in this "Take #2", The Bob Seger System (1969) (toned down)...
> >> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/ramblinman.mp3
>
> >> Jack
>
> > I'm amazed (though I shouldn't be), that no one, so far, can tell me
> > what is different about this Stereo mix than what is commonly heard.
>
> Well, after listening to a few of your mix attempts they are perhaps low
> in priority with some listeners.
>
> > Beatles fans? My GUESS, this was/is typically mixed in what I refer to
> > as lopsided stereo, vocals on one stereo side, music on the other.
>
> That was never intended as stereophonic, it is a two channel multitrack.
>
> > It strongly supports my theory, people don't actually listen to music!
>
> My theory has become that you only ever post here and never read as this
> issue has been explained to you numerous times.

Some (audio) challenge me and I even appreciate it. Remember Randy (past participant) and the Blood, Sweat & Tears thread? At least I got to hear what (tape noise) Sony was soliciting, since they are "professionals".

Anyway, sorry, this follow-up ended in the wrong place. Was meant to be under that Beatles song stereo remix (Noisy Tapes To Mix).

Jack
>
> > Jack
>
> - Peter Larsen

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 9:37:27 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 12/05/2016 14:15, wrote:
> > JackA: A thread titled "Mastering Too Loud" is
> > likely to be ignored on an audio PRODUCTION
> > newsgroup.
> >
> Most threads by JackAss will not be seen by many in this group, due to
> people's killfile settings.

Funny. When you reach my confidence level, you, too, will wonder why others don't challenge you and prefer to hide.

Jack

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

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 9:49:43 AM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 12-05-2016 14:31, wrote:
>
> > Peter Larsen wrote: "That was never intended as stereophonic, it is a two channel multitrack."
>
> > But it was MARKETED as such.
>
> This is correct. What happened was that hardware sales overtook record
> equipment and almost overnight there was a gazillion 2 X 4 to 8 watt
> stereo systems and no software and the pinstripes released the
> recordings as stereo because they didn't know what stereo is all about.
> Pan pots were quite slow to creep into over the counter mixers ...
>
> > JackA should get prime seats
> > at a concert or orchestra in a purpose-built venue. He'll find out
> > what "stereo" is quite quickly. Stereo is all around us - not
> > limited to two, or four, or eight speakers, or headphones.
>
> This too is correct. Anyone interested in audio should join a chamber
> music society and listen to some chamber music.
>
> > A Marketing dept. can convince consumers that a shiny brown
> > steaming mound of **** is "vibrant stereo" or "gloriously
> > remastered", even if what was really done to it was otherwise,
> > and those consumers will snatch it up as canonical.
>
> *digitally remastered* is some of the time a good idea and some
> of the time proof that a very skilled listener that mixed great records
> has a shift of the audiotory threshold, multiband processing can be
> helpful in terms of lifting out treble detail and getting it above an
> elevated high range threshold.
>
> Love your ABBA vinyl and similar good 1970'ties products, treble sweet-
> and smoothness sometimes gets sweet and sour, with soy even, in
> remaSTering and the digital remasterings may not sound as good as the
> original versions.
>
> And that of course makes the high-end crowd rush to the record stores
> and lament digital distortion, even though it is no fault of the
> technology.
>
> If you are some day bored, then take a look at the audio envelope on the
> LOVE CD .... hard limiting at -6 dB on one of the tracks



Why the 2009 Beatles Remasters waited until DAW existed. THEY spent FOUR years on the "project" and really didn't accomplish much. Not impressed at all.

Jack

so someone wise
> undid an error of judgement and got the musical context right. Now if
> only they had not removed the real room tone with whatever digital NR
> they used .... less NR had been better. Of course, it probably was the
> hard of hearing geezer that saved the musical level differences on taht
> album ... the willingness to actually listen is no less important than
> the threshold :)
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

[geoff]

On 13/05/2016 2:10 a.m., JackA wrote:
> Why the 2009 Beatles Remasters waited until DAW existed. THEY spent
> FOUR years on the "project" and really didn't accomplish much. Not
> impressed at all. Jack so someone wise


So you are deaf as well as stupid.

geoff

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 5:23:37 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 13/05/2016 2:10 a.m., JackA wrote:
> > Why the 2009 Beatles Remasters waited until DAW existed. THEY spent
> > FOUR years on the "project" and really didn't accomplish much. Not
> > impressed at all. Jack so someone wise
>
>
> So you are deaf as well as stupid.

Look, you and John W. can stick with your kindergarten audio and I'll do my thing. Deal?

Jack

>
> geoff

[None]

< thekma @ braindead.retards.org > wrote in message
...
> JackA: A thread titled "Mastering Too Loud" is
> likely to be ignored on an audio PRODUCTION
> newsgroup.

Threads by trolling nazi dog**** is ignored by many. Threads by
retarded trolling dumb****s likewise. But being a dumb****, you don't
understand. Sucks to be you.

[John Williamson]

On 13/05/2016 00:46, JackA wrote:
> On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 5:23:37 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
>> On 13/05/2016 2:10 a.m., JackA wrote:
>>> Why the 2009 Beatles Remasters waited until DAW existed. THEY spent
>>> FOUR years on the "project" and really didn't accomplish much. Not
>>> impressed at all. Jack so someone wise
>>
>>
>> So you are deaf as well as stupid.
>
> Look, you and John W. can stick with your kindergarten audio and I'll do my thing. Deal?
>
Better still, you get some decent monitoring and learn to listen to
what's there, and we'll stop heckling you.

I have produced CDs from live recordings for happy clients. You haven't.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

..... wrote: "< thekma @ braindead.retards.org > wrote in message
...
> JackA: A thread titled "Mastering Too Loud" is
> likely to be ignored on an audio PRODUCTION
> newsgroup.

Threads by trolling nazi dog**** is ignored by many. Threads by
retarded trolling dumb****s likewise. But being a dumb****, you don't
understand. Sucks to be you."


Oops.

Looks like I stepped on the toes of the
(former)marketing dept.!

[None]

< THECKHHHHHMAAAAAAAAAAH @ shortbus.com > wrote in message
news:056a473d-4996-4ff9-b7bf-
> Oops.
>
> Looks like I stepped on the toes of the
> (former)marketing dept.!

Oops. The retarded dumb **** got dropped on his head again.

[[email protected]]

.... wrote: "Oops. The retarded dumb **** got dropped on his head again. "


Answer me this: WHY does it bother you so much???


Why aren't Dorsey, Rivers, Larsen, Williamson, geoff,
Trevor, and a hundred others resorting to a diatribe of
verbal diarrhea like what you post here??

"excess compression" "peak limiting" "LOUDNESS"

There, do those terms make you want to drive off
the road?!

[JackA]

On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 1:49:53 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 13/05/2016 00:46, JackA wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 5:23:37 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> >> On 13/05/2016 2:10 a.m., JackA wrote:
> >>> Why the 2009 Beatles Remasters waited until DAW existed. THEY spent
> >>> FOUR years on the "project" and really didn't accomplish much. Not
> >>> impressed at all. Jack so someone wise
> >>
> >>
> >> So you are deaf as well as stupid.
> >
> > Look, you and John W. can stick with your kindergarten audio and I'll do my thing. Deal?
> >
> Better still, you get some decent monitoring and learn to listen to
> what's there, and we'll stop heckling you.
>
> I have produced CDs from live recordings for happy clients. You haven't.

I GUESS I'll have to take YOUR word.

Jack

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

[None]

< lil-krissie-go-sickie @ whining-brats.retardsRtheckma.edu > wrote in
message ...
> ... wrote: "Oops. The retarded dumb **** got dropped on his head
> again. "
>
> Answer me this: WHY does it bother you so much???

Don't get angry, li'l buddy. You come here specifically to anger
people (including me), and you are mocked for being such an asshole.
And that makes you angry.

> "excess compression" "peak limiting" "LOUDNESS"

Hobbyhorse! Ride-em Kowboy! If those three terms were drawn from the
hermetically sealed mayonnaise jar on Funk and Wagnall's porch, Karnac
would respond, "Name three of Theckma's hobbyhorse obsessions that he
is too retarded to comprehend."

> There, do those terms make you want to drive off the road?!

You're the one who brags about how you can't even stay in your lane on
the highway. Do you expect others to drive like retards as well?

[JackA]

On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 8:01:25 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> ... wrote: "Oops. The retarded dumb **** got dropped on his head again. "
>
>
> Answer me this: WHY does it bother you so much???
>
>
> Why aren't Dorsey, Rivers, Larsen, Williamson, geoff,
> Trevor, and a hundred others resorting to a diatribe of
> verbal diarrhea like what you post here??
>
> "excess compression" "peak limiting" "LOUDNESS"
>
> There, do those terms make you want to drive off
> the road?!

One day, I said, one day, we'll hear some of None's audio work.

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson > wrote:
>On 13/05/2016 00:46, JackA wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 5:23:37 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2016 2:10 a.m., JackA wrote:
>>>> Why the 2009 Beatles Remasters waited until DAW existed. THEY spent
>>>> FOUR years on the "project" and really didn't accomplish much. Not
>>>> impressed at all. Jack so someone wise
>>>
>>>
>>> So you are deaf as well as stupid.
>>
>> Look, you and John W. can stick with your kindergarten audio and I'll do my thing. Deal?
>>
>Better still, you get some decent monitoring and learn to listen to
>what's there, and we'll stop heckling you.

The guy _enjoys_ being heckled. He is here to be heckled.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 9:03:51 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> John Williamson > wrote:
> >On 13/05/2016 00:46, JackA wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 5:23:37 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> >>> On 13/05/2016 2:10 a.m., JackA wrote:
> >>>> Why the 2009 Beatles Remasters waited until DAW existed. THEY spent
> >>>> FOUR years on the "project" and really didn't accomplish much. Not
> >>>> impressed at all. Jack so someone wise
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So you are deaf as well as stupid.
> >>
> >> Look, you and John W. can stick with your kindergarten audio and I'll do my thing. Deal?
> >>
> >Better still, you get some decent monitoring and learn to listen to
> >what's there, and we'll stop heckling you.
>
> The guy _enjoys_ being heckled. He is here to be heckled.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I come here hoping someone could answer the simple question, what main problem was there with early mastering of audio CDs. I get the old story, DAC convertors issues.
So bored of the lack of past audio knowledge, since no one here was mastering early CDs, I came across a defunct website that clearly stated the problem/issue.

Heckle that, pros.

Jack

[Luxey]

петак, 13. мај 2016. 15.44.59 UTC+2, JackA је написао/ла:
> On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 9:03:51 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > John Williamson > wrote:
> > >On 13/05/2016 00:46, JackA wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 5:23:37 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> > >>> On 13/05/2016 2:10 a.m., JackA wrote:
> > >>>> Why the 2009 Beatles Remasters waited until DAW existed. THEY spent
> > >>>> FOUR years on the "project" and really didn't accomplish much. Not
> > >>>> impressed at all. Jack so someone wise
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> So you are deaf as well as stupid.
> > >>
> > >> Look, you and John W. can stick with your kindergarten audio and I'll do my thing. Deal?
> > >>
> > >Better still, you get some decent monitoring and learn to listen to
> > >what's there, and we'll stop heckling you.
> >
> > The guy _enjoys_ being heckled. He is here to be heckled.
> > --scott
> > --
> > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
> I come here hoping someone could answer the simple question, what main problem was there with early mastering of audio CDs. I get the old story, DAC convertors issues.
> So bored of the lack of past audio knowledge, since no one here was mastering early CDs, I came across a defunct website that clearly stated the problem/issue.
>
> Heckle that, pros.
>
> Jack

It's been a long time since I've read one of your posts, but the main reason
for you to think nobody's answering your question is your inability to
understand provided answers. Also, your questions are not clear, if I remember
correctly, you can't distinguish btw recording, mixing and mastering, btw
multitrack and stereo, and so on. Therefore, you are not satisfied with
answers, but still, answers are there.

[david gourley[_2_]]

Luxey > said...news:5f0f0d0c-5d6c-45b0-b6ee-
:

> петак, 13. мај 2016. 15.44.59 UTC+2, JackA је написао/л
а:
>> On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 9:03:51 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> > John Williamson > wrote:
>> > >On 13/05/2016 00:46, JackA wrote:
>> > >> On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 5:23:37 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
>> > >>> On 13/05/2016 2:10 a.m., JackA wrote:
>> > >>>> Why the 2009 Beatles Remasters waited until DAW existed. THEY
spen
> t
>> > >>>> FOUR years on the "project" and really didn't accomplish much.
Not
>> > >>>> impressed at all. Jack so someone wise
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> So you are deaf as well as stupid.
>> > >>
>> > >> Look, you and John W. can stick with your kindergarten audio and
I'l
> l do my thing. Deal?
>> > >>
>> > >Better still, you get some decent monitoring and learn to listen to
>> > >what's there, and we'll stop heckling you.
>> >
>> > The guy _enjoys_ being heckled. He is here to be heckled.
>> > --scott
>> > --
>> > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>>
>> I come here hoping someone could answer the simple question, what main
pr
> oblem was there with early mastering of audio CDs. I get the old story,
DAC convertors issues.
>> So bored of the lack of past audio knowledge, since no one here was
maste
> ring early CDs, I came across a defunct website that clearly stated the
problem/issue.
>>
>> Heckle that, pros.
>>
>> Jack
>
> It's been a long time since I've read one of your posts, but the main
reason
> for you to think nobody's answering your question is your inability to
> understand provided answers. Also, your questions are not clear, if I
remember
> correctly, you can't distinguish btw recording, mixing and mastering, btw
> multitrack and stereo, and so on. Therefore, you are not satisfied with
> answers, but still, answers are there.
>

No, he's just here to troll.

david

[JackA]

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 7:58:39 AM UTC-4, Luxey wrote:
> петак, 13. мај 2016. 15.44.59 UTC+2, JackA је написао/ла:
> > On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 9:03:51 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > > John Williamson > wrote:
> > > >On 13/05/2016 00:46, JackA wrote:
> > > >> On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 5:23:37 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> > > >>> On 13/05/2016 2:10 a.m., JackA wrote:
> > > >>>> Why the 2009 Beatles Remasters waited until DAW existed. THEY spent
> > > >>>> FOUR years on the "project" and really didn't accomplish much. Not
> > > >>>> impressed at all. Jack so someone wise
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So you are deaf as well as stupid.
> > > >>
> > > >> Look, you and John W. can stick with your kindergarten audio and I'll do my thing. Deal?
> > > >>
> > > >Better still, you get some decent monitoring and learn to listen to
> > > >what's there, and we'll stop heckling you.
> > >
> > > The guy _enjoys_ being heckled. He is here to be heckled.
> > > --scott
> > > --
> > > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> >
> > I come here hoping someone could answer the simple question, what main problem was there with early mastering of audio CDs. I get the old story, DAC convertors issues.
> > So bored of the lack of past audio knowledge, since no one here was mastering early CDs, I came across a defunct website that clearly stated the problem/issue.
> >
> > Heckle that, pros.
> >
> > Jack
>
> It's been a long time...

Shame it was so short!

Jack

[Luxey]

понедељак, 30. мај 2016. 03.10.07 UTC+2, JackA је написао/ла:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 7:58:39 AM UTC-4, Luxey wrote:
> > петак, 13. мај 2016. 15.44.59 UTC+2, JackA је написао/ла:
> > > On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 9:03:51 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > > > John Williamson > wrote:
> > > > >On 13/05/2016 00:46, JackA wrote:
> > > > >> On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 5:23:37 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> > > > >>> On 13/05/2016 2:10 a.m., JackA wrote:
> > > > >>>> Why the 2009 Beatles Remasters waited until DAW existed. THEY spent
> > > > >>>> FOUR years on the "project" and really didn't accomplish much. Not
> > > > >>>> impressed at all. Jack so someone wise
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> So you are deaf as well as stupid.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Look, you and John W. can stick with your kindergarten audio and I'll do my thing. Deal?
> > > > >>
> > > > >Better still, you get some decent monitoring and learn to listen to
> > > > >what's there, and we'll stop heckling you.
> > > >
> > > > The guy _enjoys_ being heckled. He is here to be heckled.
> > > > --scott
> > > > --
> > > > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> > >
> > > I come here hoping someone could answer the simple question, what main problem was there with early mastering of audio CDs. I get the old story, DAC convertors issues.
> > > So bored of the lack of past audio knowledge, since no one here was mastering early CDs, I came across a defunct website that clearly stated the problem/issue.
> > >
> > > Heckle that, pros.
> > >
> > > Jack
> >
> > It's been a long time...
>
> Shame it was so short!
>
> Jack

Good, (as long as) it is not any more.