Nice Recording

[JackA]

Of course, you run across particular audio CDs and become disappointed with sound quality. Even a local HD Radio station (WOGL-FM 98.1 MHz) plays what I had, sounds foul. Why offer HD Radio, to broadcast foul sound? Somehow, I remember having the 45 (Vanguard) vinyl single of this song and liked the sound quality. This is from a UK CD, I tweaked the sound as I, not others, enjoy hearing it sound. Joan Baez did a fine job, brought some life to the song from what The Band offered....

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thenightolddixie.mp3

Nick Robbins at Sound Mastering, LTD (uk), did the Mastering.

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/2/2016 6:35 PM, JackA wrote:
> Why offer HD Radio, to broadcast foul sound?

HD Radio, by nature, sounds foul.

--

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

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 6:54:10 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/2/2016 6:35 PM, JackA wrote:
> > Why offer HD Radio, to broadcast foul sound?
>
> HD Radio, by nature, sounds foul.

I understand car service bulletins mention about reception of HD Radio. Don't believe enough research was done on this digital broadcasting, seems it falls back to regular FM Stereo when signal strength isn't strong enough.

http://www.markramseymedia.com/2014/08/the-nail-in-hd-radios-coffin-and-what-it-means-for-you/

Selling off...
http://current.org/2015/09/creator-of-hd-radio-will-be-acquired-for-172-million/

Last I heard, Ford Motor Company was asked to offer HD Radio. Also, since signal strength is important, iBiquity was asking FCC for more broadcasting power. Not sure where that went.

I do know, from someone whop manufactures HD Radio broadcast equipment, the bandwidth is the total sum of the (4) channels, music and talk.

Jack
>
> --
>
> For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/2/2016 7:21 PM, JackA wrote:

> I understand car service bulletins mention about reception of HD
> Radio. Don't believe enough research was done on this digital
> broadcasting, seems it falls back to regular FM Stereo when signal
> strength isn't strong enough.

Yup, it's quite annoying. The standard FM and HD channels are never
quite in sync (it's possible, just nobody bothers to take care to do it
right) so it's very obvious. But before it switches to standard FM, it
mutes, hoping to get the HD signal back. Quite annoying. But then, I
have the same problem with digital TV over the air, particularly during
stormy weather.

> I do know, from someone whop manufactures HD Radio broadcast
> equipment, the bandwidth is the total sum of the (4) channels, music
> and talk.

I imagine they can carve up the bandwidth as much as they want, but the
idea was to not use as much bandwidth as a standard 75 kHz FM channel.
The big selling point for broadcasters was that they could carry
multiple programs on the same channel (and on the same license).

But the bottom line was that most of them couldn't find enough material
to fill as many channels as were allowed. For example, WAMU, one of our
local public radio stations, carries their regular FM broadcast on one
of their HD channels, Bluegrass Country (which is also streaming on the
Internet and a low power FM transmitter) on another channel, and stuff
from the BBC on a third channel. They used to have a fourth channel, but
no longer use it.

For what it's worth, sometimes the FM version of Bluegrass Country
sometimes sounds better in my car than the Internet version does in my
house (I can't get the FM transmitter in my house - car radios are still
pretty darn good radios). But sometimes the FM version sounds like a low
bit rate MP3. It might have to do with STL, when the wind blows the
wrong way and there's too much error correction.


--

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

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

"For what it's worth, sometimes the FM version of Bluegrass Country
sometimes sounds better in my car than the Internet version does in my
house (I can't get the FM transmitter in my house - car radios are still
pretty darn good radios). But sometimes the FM version sounds like a low
bit rate MP3. It might have to do with STL, when the wind blows the
wrong way and there's too much error correction. "
- show quoted text -


As with analog vs digital recordings(or formats within
digital), it's the processing that makes the biggest
audible difference. What processing chain stands
between the source and the transmission format in
each case - terrestrial FM vs HD radio.

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 8:45:39 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/2/2016 7:21 PM, JackA wrote:
>
> > I understand car service bulletins mention about reception of HD
> > Radio. Don't believe enough research was done on this digital
> > broadcasting, seems it falls back to regular FM Stereo when signal
> > strength isn't strong enough.
>
> Yup, it's quite annoying. The standard FM and HD channels are never
> quite in sync (it's possible, just nobody bothers to take care to do it
> right) so it's very obvious. But before it switches to standard FM, it
> mutes, hoping to get the HD signal back. Quite annoying. But then, I
> have the same problem with digital TV over the air, particularly during
> stormy weather.
>
> > I do know, from someone whop manufactures HD Radio broadcast
> > equipment, the bandwidth is the total sum of the (4) channels, music
> > and talk.
>
> I imagine they can carve up the bandwidth as much as they want, but the
> idea was to not use as much bandwidth as a standard 75 kHz FM channel.
> The big selling point for broadcasters was that they could carry
> multiple programs on the same channel (and on the same license).
>
> But the bottom line was that most of them couldn't find enough material
> to fill as many channels as were allowed. For example, WAMU, one of our
> local public radio stations, carries their regular FM broadcast on one
> of their HD channels, Bluegrass Country (which is also streaming on the
> Internet and a low power FM transmitter) on another channel, and stuff
> from the BBC on a third channel. They used to have a fourth channel, but
> no longer use it.
>
> For what it's worth, sometimes the FM version of Bluegrass Country
> sometimes sounds better in my car than the Internet version does in my
> house (I can't get the FM transmitter in my house - car radios are still
> pretty darn good radios). But sometimes the FM version sounds like a low
> bit rate MP3. It might have to do with STL, when the wind blows the
> wrong way and there's too much error correction.


-- Some say FM Stereo lost it's (more impressive) "sound" switching to digital from vinyl sources. There, I have to agree.
-- Thing is, as you sort of pointed out, HD-1 channels play the same darn songs over and over until you're sick of them. Then, you find all that's missing is on HD-2 channels.
-- Even digital television transmissions (cable) are far from impressive. Never seen so many frozen images in my entire life. Just like early analog cell phones (vs digital) maybe distortion, but less dropped calls.
-- Personally, if I were iBiquity, I would have covered/supplies/licensed audio sources for the HD Radio stations for superior sound quality.
-- The last I heard, the cost to switch to HD was about $100,000 (sure much more now).

Now, Mike, you're more familiar with audio equipment than I, can you actually purchase the sound processors used at FM stations? I guess early ones had noise filters for vinyl records, but all seem to manipulate (widen) stereo sound. I once thought radio stations got the "good" vinyl stuff, since my vinyl didn't quite match what I heard on radio.

Thanks.

Jack

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

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 10:09:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> "For what it's worth, sometimes the FM version of Bluegrass Country
> sometimes sounds better in my car than the Internet version does in my
> house (I can't get the FM transmitter in my house - car radios are still
> pretty darn good radios). But sometimes the FM version sounds like a low
> bit rate MP3. It might have to do with STL, when the wind blows the
> wrong way and there's too much error correction. "
> - show quoted text -
>
>
> As with analog vs digital recordings(or formats within
> digital), it's the processing that makes the biggest
> audible difference. What processing chain stands
> between the source and the transmission format in
> each case - terrestrial FM vs HD radio.

-- But aren't those sound processors used with both formats? Why I believed they (HD-R) bragged, "Better than CD quality", initially.

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/3/2016 8:21 AM, JackA wrote:
> -- Some say FM Stereo lost it's (more impressive) "sound" switching
> to digital from vinyl sources. There, I have to agree.

And I disagree, at least somewhat. You have to qualify what you mean
"digital sources." If you mean in general playing CDs on the air rather
than phonograph records, there's no reason why this should degrade the
sound. But I'll agree with you that modern pop music CDs don't sound as
good as pop music on phonograph records of 30 years ago. That's not a
function of the media, it's a function of what record producers are able
to sell today.

One thing that makes "worse" even worse is that most pop music stations,
whether they're broadcasting digital or analog, is that it often doesn't
come into the station on hard media. A song comes to the station over a
network as a data-compressed file and goes directly into the station's
digital library (playback from which can be easily be automated). So
that means that what you're hearing isn't, for better or worse, what the
artist/producer intended for you to hear, you're hearing it as whoever
fed the data to the station compressed it, and what the station's
digital playback and processing system does to it.

> -- Thing is, as you sort of pointed out, HD-1 channels play the same
> darn songs over and over until you're sick of them. Then, you find
> all that's missing is on HD-2 channels.

I didn't point that out, at least I didn't intend to. Pop music stations
play the same tunes over and over. That's what they've always done. As
far as division between HD channels, hey, it's nice to have a place that
they can play alternative music and not have to worry about selling air
time.

But some of the creeping meatballism is with the non-commercial stations
too. A lot of the folk music programming I hear isn't based entirely on
the interest or focus of the DJ/producer, but rather, who's coming to
town in the next couple of weeks. They'll pick one song from a visiting
artist and it will play a couple of times a day for a week or so, and
that may be the only time that artist is played until he comes to town
next. A dear friend of mine has had a folk show on radio in the DC area
for about 45 years, and for about the last 20 of those years, between a
third to half of her air time (depending on how busy a travel week it
is) is playing music from artists coming to town. This is her choice,
not station policy, but it's what she does. It's good for the artists,
of course, because it might bring a few more people to their show than
otherwise. But it does mean that there's an hour of other interesting
music that doesn't get played.

> -- Personally, if I were iBiquity, I would have
> covered/supplies/licensed audio sources for the HD Radio stations for
> superior sound quality.

After so many crappy cassette recorders were built with Dolby B/C, Dolby
tried something like that. They wouldn't license Dolby S to a
manufacturer until they tested the machine for which it was intended, to
assure that the recorder was good enough to support the benefit of the
more advanced noise reduction system. This was intended to be the
standard for pre-recorded cassettes, but since it wasn't introduced
until 1989, by which time cassettes were fading out of the picture, the
whole thing fizzled. A small handful of cassette decks were built with
Dolby S, but it was just too expensive an undertaking compared with CDs,
which had no imposed standards of quality.

> Now, Mike, you're more familiar with audio equipment than I, can you
> actually purchase the sound processors used at FM stations?

Of course. Bob Orban (who occasionally drops by here) will sell anybody
whatever the want. Hardware or software. He'll even give you a free
loudness meter that really works.

http://www.orban.com/products/radio/

http://www.orban.com/meter/


--

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

[JackA]

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 9:21:23 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/3/2016 8:21 AM, JackA wrote:
> > -- Some say FM Stereo lost it's (more impressive) "sound" switching
> > to digital from vinyl sources. There, I have to agree.
>
> And I disagree, at least somewhat. You have to qualify what you mean
> "digital sources." If you mean in general playing CDs on the air rather
> than phonograph records, there's no reason why this should degrade the
> sound. But I'll agree with you that modern pop music CDs don't sound as
> good as pop music on phonograph records of 30 years ago. That's not a
> function of the media, it's a function of what record producers are able
> to sell today.
>
> One thing that makes "worse" even worse is that most pop music stations,
> whether they're broadcasting digital or analog, is that it often doesn't
> come into the station on hard media. A song comes to the station over a
> network as a data-compressed file and goes directly into the station's
> digital library (playback from which can be easily be automated). So
> that means that what you're hearing isn't, for better or worse, what the
> artist/producer intended for you to hear, you're hearing it as whoever
> fed the data to the station compressed it, and what the station's
> digital playback and processing system does to it.
>
> > -- Thing is, as you sort of pointed out, HD-1 channels play the same
> > darn songs over and over until you're sick of them. Then, you find
> > all that's missing is on HD-2 channels.
>
> I didn't point that out, at least I didn't intend to. Pop music stations
> play the same tunes over and over. That's what they've always done. As
> far as division between HD channels, hey, it's nice to have a place that
> they can play alternative music and not have to worry about selling air
> time.
>
> But some of the creeping meatballism is with the non-commercial stations
> too. A lot of the folk music programming I hear isn't based entirely on
> the interest or focus of the DJ/producer, but rather, who's coming to
> town in the next couple of weeks. They'll pick one song from a visiting
> artist and it will play a couple of times a day for a week or so, and
> that may be the only time that artist is played until he comes to town
> next. A dear friend of mine has had a folk show on radio in the DC area
> for about 45 years, and for about the last 20 of those years, between a
> third to half of her air time (depending on how busy a travel week it
> is) is playing music from artists coming to town. This is her choice,
> not station policy, but it's what she does. It's good for the artists,
> of course, because it might bring a few more people to their show than
> otherwise. But it does mean that there's an hour of other interesting
> music that doesn't get played.
>
> > -- Personally, if I were iBiquity, I would have
> > covered/supplies/licensed audio sources for the HD Radio stations for
> > superior sound quality.
>
> After so many crappy cassette recorders were built with Dolby B/C, Dolby
> tried something like that. They wouldn't license Dolby S to a
> manufacturer until they tested the machine for which it was intended, to
> assure that the recorder was good enough to support the benefit of the
> more advanced noise reduction system. This was intended to be the
> standard for pre-recorded cassettes, but since it wasn't introduced
> until 1989, by which time cassettes were fading out of the picture, the
> whole thing fizzled. A small handful of cassette decks were built with
> Dolby S, but it was just too expensive an undertaking compared with CDs,
> which had no imposed standards of quality.
>
> > Now, Mike, you're more familiar with audio equipment than I, can you
> > actually purchase the sound processors used at FM stations?
>
> Of course. Bob Orban (who occasionally drops by here) will sell anybody
> whatever the want. Hardware or software. He'll even give you a free
> loudness meter that really works.
>
> http://www.orban.com/products/radio/
>
> http://www.orban.com/meter/

Wow, nice!!! During my time on the 'net, only twice did ANYONE mention the sound quality difference of radio. It just supports my theory, [people don't actually "listen" to music.

Sorry, you mentioned radio doesn't have enough material to occupy the different HD channels, why I mentioned the song redundancy of HD-1. I'm still not sure why, some claim some services regrade popular songs, and those songs are selected as the "best". I DO KNOW, Pop radio has phased out Adult Contemporary hits, why I don't like Billboard and Joel Whitburn "tagging" music..

CDs initially sounded "ill" to my ears. While some claim loudness isn't important, I strongly feel it is. I had to laugh listening to radio during the transition to digital sound (CDs), they were worse than vinyl, skipping all over the place.

More later; thanks!

Jack
>
>
> --
>
> For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Rick Ruskin]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:35:41 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
wrote:

<Snip>
>....... Joan Baez did a fine job, brought some life to the song from what The Band offered....
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thenightolddixie.mp3
>
>Nick Robbins at Sound Mastering, LTD (uk), did the Mastering.
>
>Jack


Brought some life? You've got to be kidding. Her version is so
homogenized that it sucks all the life out of it.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[JackA]

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 11:45:07 AM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:35:41 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
> wrote:
>
> <Snip>
> >....... Joan Baez did a fine job, brought some life to the song from what The Band offered....
> >
> >http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thenightolddixie.mp3
> >
> >Nick Robbins at Sound Mastering, LTD (uk), did the Mastering.
> >
> >Jack
>
>
> Brought some life? You've got to be kidding. Her version is so
> homogenized that it sucks all the life out of it.

I understand The Band didn't care to play the song any longer, since they were NO MATCH for Joan Baez, a real singer, she left them up on Cripple Creek. No one could have pulled it off better. Okay, song writer was a bit ****ed, because she corrected some lyrics.

Just my two cents.

Jack

>
>
> Rick Ruskin
> Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
> http://liondogmusic.com

[Rick Ruskin]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:52:45 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
wrote:

>On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 11:45:07 AM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:35:41 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
>> wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>> >....... Joan Baez did a fine job, brought some life to the song from what The Band offered....
>> >
>> >http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thenightolddixie.mp3
>> >
>> >Nick Robbins at Sound Mastering, LTD (uk), did the Mastering.
>> >
>> >Jack
>>
>>
>> Brought some life? You've got to be kidding. Her version is so
>> homogenized that it sucks all the life out of it.
>
>I understand The Band didn't care to play the song any longer, since they were NO MATCH for Joan Baez, a real singer,
she left them up on Cripple Creek. No one could have pulled it off
better. Okay, song writer was a bit ****ed, because she corrected some
lyrics.
>
>Just my two cents.
>
>Jack

Your "understanding" was pulled out of your own ass. The Band
continued to perform the song years after Baez recorded it. See the
track list from "The Last Waltz," for proof. I seriously doubt Robbie
Robertson was "****ed" about the tune being covered. Having a song
recorded by others is what songwriters want. Wrong lyrics? the
composer got his own lyrics wrong and dead-pan Joan fixed them?
Give me a break.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[JackA]

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 12:25:08 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:52:45 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 11:45:07 AM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:35:41 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> <Snip>
> >> >....... Joan Baez did a fine job, brought some life to the song from what The Band offered....
> >> >
> >> >http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thenightolddixie.mp3
> >> >
> >> >Nick Robbins at Sound Mastering, LTD (uk), did the Mastering.
> >> >
> >> >Jack
> >>
> >>
> >> Brought some life? You've got to be kidding. Her version is so
> >> homogenized that it sucks all the life out of it.
> >
> >I understand The Band didn't care to play the song any longer, since they were NO MATCH for Joan Baez, a real singer,
> she left them up on Cripple Creek. No one could have pulled it off
> better. Okay, song writer was a bit ****ed, because she corrected some
> lyrics.
> >
> >Just my two cents.
> >
> >Jack
>
> Your "understanding" was pulled out of your own ass. The Band
> continued to perform the song years after Baez recorded it. See the
> track list from "The Last Waltz," for proof. I seriously doubt Robbie
> Robertson was "****ed" about the tune being covered. Having a song
> recorded by others is what songwriters want. Wrong lyrics? the
> composer got his own lyrics wrong and dead-pan Joan fixed them?
> Give me a break.

"Helm's (lyric research and Band member) refusal to play the song was a dispute with Robertson over songwriting credits, according to Garth Hudson it was due to Helm's dislike for Joan Baez's cover version".


Don't get me wrong, I like The Band, but their version sounds like drunken skunks singing it!

Jack

> Rick Ruskin
> Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
> http://liondogmusic.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/3/2016 12:42 PM, JackA wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I like The Band, but their version sounds like drunken skunks singing it!

I think that's a good fit, actually - drunken soldiers, maybe, rather
than skunks. I agree with Rick that Joan Baez' version is really boring,
but she does have a lovely voice. I think maybe she was trying to make
it into a folk ballad, which is something that she used to do fairly
well, and it's not.

--

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

[Rick Ruskin]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:42:29 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
wrote:

>On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 12:25:08 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:52:45 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 11:45:07 AM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:35:41 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <Snip>
>> >> >....... Joan Baez did a fine job, brought some life to the song from what The Band offered....
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thenightolddixie.mp3
>> >> >
>> >> >Nick Robbins at Sound Mastering, LTD (uk), did the Mastering.
>> >> >
>> >> >Jack
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Brought some life? You've got to be kidding. Her version is so
>> >> homogenized that it sucks all the life out of it.
>> >
>> >I understand The Band didn't care to play the song any longer, since they were NO MATCH for Joan Baez, a real singer,
>> she left them up on Cripple Creek. No one could have pulled it off
>> better. Okay, song writer was a bit ****ed, because she corrected some
>> lyrics.
>> >
>> >Just my two cents.
>> >
>> >Jack
>>
>> Your "understanding" was pulled out of your own ass. The Band
>> continued to perform the song years after Baez recorded it. See the
>> track list from "The Last Waltz," for proof. I seriously doubt Robbie
>> Robertson was "****ed" about the tune being covered. Having a song
>> recorded by others is what songwriters want. Wrong lyrics? the
>> composer got his own lyrics wrong and dead-pan Joan fixed them?
>> Give me a break.
>
>"Helm's (lyric research and Band member) refusal to play the song was a dispute with Robertson over songwriting credits, according to Garth Hudson it was due to Helm's dislike for Joan Baez's cover version".
>
>
>Don't get me wrong, I like The Band, but their version sounds like drunken skunks singing it!
>
>Jack
>

Man, your have selective logic. Levon Helm supposedly refused to do
the song _after_ the Band broke up. Give it up. You have no idea
what you are talking about.

Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[JackA]

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 1:13:27 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/3/2016 12:42 PM, JackA wrote:
> > Don't get me wrong, I like The Band, but their version sounds like drunken skunks singing it!
>
> I think that's a good fit, actually - drunken soldiers, maybe, rather
> than skunks. I agree with Rick that Joan Baez' version is really boring,
> but she does have a lovely voice. I think maybe she was trying to make
> it into a folk ballad, which is something that she used to do fairly
> well, and it's not.

When a male sexist defends the female singer, you know Joan brought justice and life to the song. The Band = monotone sound, nothing exciting.

And, FYI Rick, Joan copied the song from listening to The Band, no written lyrics. So she did make mistakes, maybe because (The) Band singer was not clear.

I agree, Mike, sort of Folk sounding.

Jack
>
> --
>
> For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Rick Ruskin]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:55:18 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
wrote:

>On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 1:13:27 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 6/3/2016 12:42 PM, JackA wrote:
>> > Don't get me wrong, I like The Band, but their version sounds like drunken skunks singing it!
>>
>> I think that's a good fit, actually - drunken soldiers, maybe, rather
>> than skunks. I agree with Rick that Joan Baez' version is really boring,
>> but she does have a lovely voice. I think maybe she was trying to make
>> it into a folk ballad, which is something that she used to do fairly
>> well, and it's not.
>
>When a male sexist defends the female singer, you know Joan brought justice and life to the song. The Band = monotone sound, nothing exciting.
>
>And, FYI Rick, Joan copied the song from listening to The Band, no written lyrics. So she did make mistakes, maybe because (The) Band singer was not clear.
>
>I agree, Mike, sort of Folk sounding.
>
>Jack
>>

Which is it, she "corrected" some lyrics or she made some mistakes.
BTW - your words - "Okay, song writer was a bit ****ed, because she
corrected some lyrics."

You can't even keep your bull**** straight.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[JackA]

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 2:04:51 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:55:18 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 1:13:27 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> >> On 6/3/2016 12:42 PM, JackA wrote:
> >> > Don't get me wrong, I like The Band, but their version sounds like drunken skunks singing it!
> >>
> >> I think that's a good fit, actually - drunken soldiers, maybe, rather
> >> than skunks. I agree with Rick that Joan Baez' version is really boring,
> >> but she does have a lovely voice. I think maybe she was trying to make
> >> it into a folk ballad, which is something that she used to do fairly
> >> well, and it's not.
> >
> >When a male sexist defends the female singer, you know Joan brought justice and life to the song. The Band = monotone sound, nothing exciting.
> >
> >And, FYI Rick, Joan copied the song from listening to The Band, no written lyrics. So she did make mistakes, maybe because (The) Band singer was not clear.
> >
> >I agree, Mike, sort of Folk sounding.
> >
> >Jack
> >>
>
> Which is it, she "corrected" some lyrics or she made some mistakes.
> BTW - your words - "Okay, song writer was a bit ****ed, because she
> corrected some lyrics."
>
> You can't even keep your bull**** straight.

You don't have to agree with me that Joan did a fine job, but Billboard Magazine has.

Why argue over that fact?

Jack

>
>
> Rick Ruskin
> Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
> http://liondogmusic.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Rick Ruskin > wrote:
>
>Man, your have selective logic. Levon Helm supposedly refused to do
>the song _after_ the Band broke up. Give it up. You have no idea
>what you are talking about.

Please don't feed the trolls.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Rick Ruskin]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:15:59 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
wrote:

>On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 2:04:51 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:55:18 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 1:13:27 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> >> On 6/3/2016 12:42 PM, JackA wrote:
>> >> > Don't get me wrong, I like The Band, but their version sounds like drunken skunks singing it!
>> >>
>> >> I think that's a good fit, actually - drunken soldiers, maybe, rather
>> >> than skunks. I agree with Rick that Joan Baez' version is really boring,
>> >> but she does have a lovely voice. I think maybe she was trying to make
>> >> it into a folk ballad, which is something that she used to do fairly
>> >> well, and it's not.
>> >
>> >When a male sexist defends the female singer, you know Joan brought justice and life to the song. The Band = monotone sound, nothing exciting.
>> >
>> >And, FYI Rick, Joan copied the song from listening to The Band, no written lyrics. So she did make mistakes, maybe because (The) Band singer was not clear.
>> >
>> >I agree, Mike, sort of Folk sounding.
>> >
>> >Jack
>> >>
>>
>> Which is it, she "corrected" some lyrics or she made some mistakes.
>> BTW - your words - "Okay, song writer was a bit ****ed, because she
>> corrected some lyrics."
>>
>> You can't even keep your bull**** straight.
>
>You don't have to agree with me that Joan did a fine job, but Billboard Magazine has.
>
>Why argue over that fact?
>
>Jack

I'm merely pointing out that you misrepresented certain facts.

Out of here now. Repsonding to trolls gets tiresome.





Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"JackA" wrote in message
...

Of course, you run across particular audio CDs and become disappointed with
sound quality. Even a local HD Radio station (WOGL-FM 98.1 MHz) plays what I
had, sounds foul. Why offer HD Radio, to broadcast foul sound? Somehow, I
remember having the 45 (Vanguard) vinyl single of this song and liked the
sound quality. This is from a UK CD, I tweaked the sound as I, not others,
enjoy hearing it sound. Joan Baez did a fine job, brought some life to the
song from what The Band offered....

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thenightolddixie.mp3

Nick Robbins at Sound Mastering, LTD (uk), did the Mastering.

Jack






I dunno, vocals are far too strident for my tastes.

I suspect you tweaked it.



Gareth.

[JackA]

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 5:22:32 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
> "JackA" wrote in message
> ...
>
> Of course, you run across particular audio CDs and become disappointed with
> sound quality. Even a local HD Radio station (WOGL-FM 98.1 MHz) plays what I
> had, sounds foul. Why offer HD Radio, to broadcast foul sound? Somehow, I
> remember having the 45 (Vanguard) vinyl single of this song and liked the
> sound quality. This is from a UK CD, I tweaked the sound as I, not others,
> enjoy hearing it sound. Joan Baez did a fine job, brought some life to the
> song from what The Band offered....
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thenightolddixie.mp3
>
> Nick Robbins at Sound Mastering, LTD (uk), did the Mastering.
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I dunno, vocals are far too strident for my tastes.
>
> I suspect you tweaked it.

I'm not finished YET! :-)

No, I added missing bass to the song (and peak trimming). Have to hear the bass (kick) drum in the left stereo channel. I'll admit, I'm beginning to forget how these songs once sounded, so I give it my best. The chorus parts blows my mind!

Jack
>
>
>
> Gareth.

[JackA]

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 5:12:32 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:15:59 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 2:04:51 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:55:18 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 1:13:27 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> >> >> On 6/3/2016 12:42 PM, JackA wrote:
> >> >> > Don't get me wrong, I like The Band, but their version sounds like drunken skunks singing it!
> >> >>
> >> >> I think that's a good fit, actually - drunken soldiers, maybe, rather
> >> >> than skunks. I agree with Rick that Joan Baez' version is really boring,
> >> >> but she does have a lovely voice. I think maybe she was trying to make
> >> >> it into a folk ballad, which is something that she used to do fairly
> >> >> well, and it's not.
> >> >
> >> >When a male sexist defends the female singer, you know Joan brought justice and life to the song. The Band = monotone sound, nothing exciting.
> >> >
> >> >And, FYI Rick, Joan copied the song from listening to The Band, no written lyrics. So she did make mistakes, maybe because (The) Band singer was not clear.
> >> >
> >> >I agree, Mike, sort of Folk sounding.
> >> >
> >> >Jack
> >> >>
> >>
> >> Which is it, she "corrected" some lyrics or she made some mistakes.
> >> BTW - your words - "Okay, song writer was a bit ****ed, because she
> >> corrected some lyrics."
> >>
> >> You can't even keep your bull**** straight.
> >
> >You don't have to agree with me that Joan did a fine job, but Billboard Magazine has.
> >
> >Why argue over that fact?
> >
> >Jack
>
> I'm merely pointing out that you misrepresented certain facts.
>
> Out of here now. Repsonding to trolls gets tiresome.

If you ever need to vent your anger, I'm here! :-)

Peace.

Jack
>
>
>
>
>
> Rick Ruskin
> Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
> http://liondogmusic.com

[JackA]

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 5:10:16 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Rick Ruskin > wrote:
> >
> >Man, your have selective logic. Levon Helm supposedly refused to do
> >the song _after_ the Band broke up. Give it up. You have no idea
> >what you are talking about.
>
> Please don't feed the trolls.

It's okay, Scott, Rick follows orders well.

Jack

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

[JackA]

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 5:22:32 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
> "JackA" wrote in message
> ...
>
> Of course, you run across particular audio CDs and become disappointed with
> sound quality. Even a local HD Radio station (WOGL-FM 98.1 MHz) plays what I
> had, sounds foul. Why offer HD Radio, to broadcast foul sound? Somehow, I
> remember having the 45 (Vanguard) vinyl single of this song and liked the
> sound quality. This is from a UK CD, I tweaked the sound as I, not others,
> enjoy hearing it sound. Joan Baez did a fine job, brought some life to the
> song from what The Band offered....
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thenightolddixie.mp3
>
> Nick Robbins at Sound Mastering, LTD (uk), did the Mastering.
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I dunno, vocals are far too strident for my tastes.
>
> I suspect you tweaked it.

Now, here is a snippet of what I didn't like (enhanced) [different CD]. You may notice when the chorus kicks in, someone turns the volume down. Maybe someone remixed and why the chorus now comes through like gangbusters....

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/dixie.mp3

Jack

>
>
>
> Gareth.

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"JackA" wrote in message
...

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 5:22:32 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
> "JackA" wrote in message
> ...
>
> Of course, you run across particular audio CDs and become disappointed
> with
> sound quality. Even a local HD Radio station (WOGL-FM 98.1 MHz) plays what
> I
> had, sounds foul. Why offer HD Radio, to broadcast foul sound? Somehow, I
> remember having the 45 (Vanguard) vinyl single of this song and liked the
> sound quality. This is from a UK CD, I tweaked the sound as I, not others,
> enjoy hearing it sound. Joan Baez did a fine job, brought some life to the
> song from what The Band offered....
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thenightolddixie.mp3
>
> Nick Robbins at Sound Mastering, LTD (uk), did the Mastering.
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I dunno, vocals are far too strident for my tastes.
>
> I suspect you tweaked it.

I'm not finished YET! :-)

No, I added missing bass to the song (and peak trimming). Have to hear the
bass (kick) drum in the left stereo channel. I'll admit, I'm beginning to
forget how these songs once sounded, so I give it my best. The chorus parts
blows my mind!

Jack
>
>
>
> Gareth.




Vocals need to sound nice, not enhanced. Like you might hear a load of
vocalists singing right next to you.

That is probably more lo-fi than you might expect.




Gareth.

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"JackA" wrote in message
...

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 5:22:32 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
> "JackA" wrote in message
> ...
>
> Of course, you run across particular audio CDs and become disappointed
> with
> sound quality. Even a local HD Radio station (WOGL-FM 98.1 MHz) plays what
> I
> had, sounds foul. Why offer HD Radio, to broadcast foul sound? Somehow, I
> remember having the 45 (Vanguard) vinyl single of this song and liked the
> sound quality. This is from a UK CD, I tweaked the sound as I, not others,
> enjoy hearing it sound. Joan Baez did a fine job, brought some life to the
> song from what The Band offered....
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thenightolddixie.mp3
>
> Nick Robbins at Sound Mastering, LTD (uk), did the Mastering.
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I dunno, vocals are far too strident for my tastes.
>
> I suspect you tweaked it.

Now, here is a snippet of what I didn't like (enhanced) [different CD]. You
may notice when the chorus kicks in, someone turns the volume down. Maybe
someone remixed and why the chorus now comes through like gangbusters....

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/dixie.mp3

Jack

>
>
>
> Gareth.





Well that is just a mess when everything kicks in.

Yuk.


Gareth.

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 8:45:39 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/2/2016 7:21 PM, JackA wrote:
>
> > I understand car service bulletins mention about reception of HD
> > Radio. Don't believe enough research was done on this digital
> > broadcasting, seems it falls back to regular FM Stereo when signal
> > strength isn't strong enough.
>
> Yup, it's quite annoying. The standard FM and HD channels are never
> quite in sync (it's possible, just nobody bothers to take care to do it
> right) so it's very obvious. But before it switches to standard FM, it
> mutes, hoping to get the HD signal back. Quite annoying. But then, I
> have the same problem with digital TV over the air, particularly during
> stormy weather.
>
> > I do know, from someone whop manufactures HD Radio broadcast
> > equipment, the bandwidth is the total sum of the (4) channels, music
> > and talk.
>
> I imagine they can carve up the bandwidth as much as they want, but the
> idea was to not use as much bandwidth as a standard 75 kHz FM channel.
> The big selling point for broadcasters was that they could carry
> multiple programs on the same channel (and on the same license).
>
> But the bottom line was that most of them couldn't find enough material
> to fill as many channels as were allowed. For example, WAMU, one of our
> local public radio stations, carries their regular FM broadcast on one
> of their HD channels, Bluegrass Country (which is also streaming on the
> Internet and a low power FM transmitter) on another channel, and stuff
> from the BBC on a third channel. They used to have a fourth channel, but
> no longer use it.
>
> For what it's worth, sometimes the FM version of Bluegrass Country
> sometimes sounds better in my car than the Internet version does in my
> house (I can't get the FM transmitter in my house - car radios are still
> pretty darn good radios). But sometimes the FM version sounds like a low
> bit rate MP3. It might have to do with STL, when the wind blows the
> wrong way and there's too much error correction.

Mike, allow me to off topic vent a bit.....

Long ago, in another usenet group, when MP3 sharing was more common, some posted a Ace (UK) CD @ only 160kbps. I immediately fell in love with the label.
Even notified when others were usenet posting many of their CDs, but they couldn't do much, not copyright owners.

However, I purchased a secondhand CD of theirs. Sadly, it was full of distortion. I did some research to find some CD process was changed and possibly the paper booklet caused CD ROT.

They already knew I was a fan and told them (Trevor) my secondhand CD story, not for handouts. Same day, Phil (I think who heads Ace) asked for my address, and sent me a brand new CD, all free! In my mind, it gets no better than Ace.

I even told them how much I enjoy one Philly type hit, but only available in Mono. I was gifted with remnants of the staged recording, and could create crude stereo (like Beatles, vocals on one side). It sounded SO NICE, because someone eventually made it sound like it was recorded in the bottom of a garbage can. Eventually, they allowed me to post the entire song, since they own the copyrights and hand no "bites"!

Then I'm told how someone (undisclosed American) who was also involved in mastering screwed them, when they asked for an opinion, but soon to find what they sent on a bootleg CD. I confirmed the individual on an eBay purchase (bootleg CD), last name matched.

One thing I like about Ace they do thing legit!! Like, you may have heard of the (uk) Jasmine label, they operate in a gray area. How do I know? When Ace licensed a particular artist, they were GIVEN the source material, even some distortion, spent tapes, RCA related. However, Jasmine COPIES some mint sounding stereo albums. I can understand ERIC Records who operates the same as as Jasmine, avoiding licensing fees, but to see (respectable) Bear Family in Germany selling Jasmine material on Bear Family's site, blows my mind!

As I know, this past music is quickly dying, and I know reissue companies are financially hurting.

Thanks for the nice chat, kudos!

Jack
>
>
> --
>
> For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[JackA]

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 6:08:03 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
> "JackA" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 5:22:32 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
> > "JackA" wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > Of course, you run across particular audio CDs and become disappointed
> > with
> > sound quality. Even a local HD Radio station (WOGL-FM 98.1 MHz) plays what
> > I
> > had, sounds foul. Why offer HD Radio, to broadcast foul sound? Somehow, I
> > remember having the 45 (Vanguard) vinyl single of this song and liked the
> > sound quality. This is from a UK CD, I tweaked the sound as I, not others,
> > enjoy hearing it sound. Joan Baez did a fine job, brought some life to the
> > song from what The Band offered....
> >
> > http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thenightolddixie.mp3
> >
> > Nick Robbins at Sound Mastering, LTD (uk), did the Mastering.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I dunno, vocals are far too strident for my tastes.
> >
> > I suspect you tweaked it.
>
> I'm not finished YET! :-)
>
> No, I added missing bass to the song (and peak trimming). Have to hear the
> bass (kick) drum in the left stereo channel. I'll admit, I'm beginning to
> forget how these songs once sounded, so I give it my best. The chorus parts
> blows my mind!
>
> Jack
> >
> >
> >
> > Gareth.
>
>
>
>
> Vocals need to sound nice, not enhanced. Like you might hear a load of
> vocalists singing right next to you.
>
> That is probably more lo-fi than you might expect.

One thing I wished they had done was to pre-process Joan's singing, mellow it a bit. Maybe a "live" recording, as, like Mike sort of mentioned, Folk music performers recorded (aka Seekers).
No, the nice crisp drummer's cymbal tells me it's closer to Hi-Fi.

Thanks for your input.

Jack
>
>
>
>
> Gareth.

[geoff]

On 4/06/2016 4:25 AM, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> Wrong lyrics? the
> composer got his own lyrics wrong and dead-pan Joan fixed them?
> Give me a break.

We're kind of accustomed to that sort of 'logic' applied to just about
everything he spouts, no ?

geoff

[JackA]

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 1:16:06 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 4/06/2016 4:25 AM, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> > Wrong lyrics? the
> > composer got his own lyrics wrong and dead-pan Joan fixed them?
> > Give me a break.
>
> We're kind of accustomed to that sort of 'logic' applied to just about
> everything he spouts, no ?

There shall me no more discussion; orders from YOUR mentor.

I enjoyed the chat with Mike Rivers. Take that for what it's worth.

Jack

>
> geoff

[Phil W]

"geoff":
> On 4/06/2016 4:25 AM, Rick Ruskin wrote:
>> Wrong lyrics? the
>> composer got his own lyrics wrong and dead-pan Joan fixed them?
>> Give me a break.
>
> We're kind of accustomed to that sort of 'logic' applied to just about
> everything he spouts, no ?

Just like that other troll, that just re-appeared after 2 years...


Beware to feed any of them!!!

[JackA]

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 3:46:32 PM UTC-4, Phil W wrote:
> "geoff":
> > On 4/06/2016 4:25 AM, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> >> Wrong lyrics? the
> >> composer got his own lyrics wrong and dead-pan Joan fixed them?
> >> Give me a break.
> >
> > We're kind of accustomed to that sort of 'logic' applied to just about
> > everything he spouts, no ?
>
> Just like that other troll, that just re-appeared after 2 years...
>
>
> Beware to feed any of them!!!

Support the audioholics, can't find any in the group!!

Jack