Trying a Different Mix

[JackA]

Bob Seger & The Silver Bullet Band - Old Time Rock & Roll (1978-79) Stereo. As I may mention a thousand times, many songs, though many recording tracks became available, turned monophonic sounding about the '70's. The thrills of past stereo were gone. I attempted to mix this fine song differently with greater stereo. It may uncover sounds not previously heard. Number of Tracks is (16), but (2) are premixed to stereo. So, it's really like 8-9 Tracks if you delete the duplicates, that serve no purpose. This also includes the unpublished studio ending...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/oldtimernr-rm3.mp3

Too harsh sound?

Jack

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"JackA" wrote in message
...

Bob Seger & The Silver Bullet Band - Old Time Rock & Roll (1978-79) Stereo.
As I may mention a thousand times, many songs, though many recording tracks
became available, turned monophonic sounding about the '70's. The thrills of
past stereo were gone. I attempted to mix this fine song differently with
greater stereo. It may uncover sounds not previously heard. Number of Tracks
is (16), but (2) are premixed to stereo. So, it's really like 8-9 Tracks if
you delete the duplicates, that serve no purpose. This also includes the
unpublished studio ending...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/oldtimernr-rm3.mp3

Too harsh sound?

Jack







Jack, there doesn't seem to be anything below about 150 Hz in there.

Maybe you should try cutting frequencies you have loads of, rather than
boosting stuff you think is lacking.

The former method works a lot better IMHO.




Gareth.

[JackA]

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 5:10:58 PM UTC-4, Gareth magennis wrote:
> "JackA" wrote in message
> ...
>
> Bob Seger & The Silver Bullet Band - Old Time Rock & Roll (1978-79) Stereo.
> As I may mention a thousand times, many songs, though many recording tracks
> became available, turned monophonic sounding about the '70's. The thrills of
> past stereo were gone. I attempted to mix this fine song differently with
> greater stereo. It may uncover sounds not previously heard. Number of Tracks
> is (16), but (2) are premixed to stereo. So, it's really like 8-9 Tracks if
> you delete the duplicates, that serve no purpose. This also includes the
> unpublished studio ending...
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/oldtimernr-rm3.mp3
>
> Too harsh sound?
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jack, there doesn't seem to be anything below about 150 Hz in there.
>
> Maybe you should try cutting frequencies you have loads of, rather than
> boosting stuff you think is lacking.
>
> The former method works a lot better IMHO.

You know, Gareth, I agree with you. Yes, the low end needs some attention, sounds "thin".
Might have to lower the higher frequencies, too.
I'm much more please with this mix; interesting, since it's typically mono sounding. But when you break things (tracks) apart, from a denser sound, you have to reshape to make it sound somewhat like the hit mix. Sometimes I feel it's better to boost key frequencies, especially if you are peaking VU, like, for example, when I boosted bass and re-maximized amplitude, the entire waveform reduces, sounds strange though.

But, this gives me a better idea why they don't remix, it's time consuming, especially if no mixing notes are available.

Thanks! :-)

Jack
>
>
>
>
> Gareth.

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"JackA" wrote in message
...

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 5:10:58 PM UTC-4, Gareth magennis wrote:
> "JackA" wrote in message
> ...
>
> Bob Seger & The Silver Bullet Band - Old Time Rock & Roll (1978-79)
> Stereo.
> As I may mention a thousand times, many songs, though many recording
> tracks
> became available, turned monophonic sounding about the '70's. The thrills
> of
> past stereo were gone. I attempted to mix this fine song differently with
> greater stereo. It may uncover sounds not previously heard. Number of
> Tracks
> is (16), but (2) are premixed to stereo. So, it's really like 8-9 Tracks
> if
> you delete the duplicates, that serve no purpose. This also includes the
> unpublished studio ending...
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/oldtimernr-rm3.mp3
>
> Too harsh sound?
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jack, there doesn't seem to be anything below about 150 Hz in there.
>
> Maybe you should try cutting frequencies you have loads of, rather than
> boosting stuff you think is lacking.
>
> The former method works a lot better IMHO.

You know, Gareth, I agree with you. Yes, the low end needs some attention,
sounds "thin".
Might have to lower the higher frequencies, too.
I'm much more please with this mix; interesting, since it's typically mono
sounding. But when you break things (tracks) apart, from a denser sound, you
have to reshape to make it sound somewhat like the hit mix. Sometimes I feel
it's better to boost key frequencies, especially if you are peaking VU,
like, for example, when I boosted bass and re-maximized amplitude, the
entire waveform reduces, sounds strange though.

But, this gives me a better idea why they don't remix, it's time consuming,
especially if no mixing notes are available.

Thanks! :-)

Jack
>
>
>
>
> Gareth.



Jack, really, try changing things around, and make your first port of call
to get rid of all the stuff you have too much of. It might be a revelation.

The only thing I find works well boosted is low bass/sub, and possibly
sometimes a little "air" in the HF, or a little bit of 100Hz warmth.

Most other stuff is better cut out, then everything else is able to surface
far more naturally.




Gareth.

[JackA]

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 5:52:25 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
> "JackA" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 5:10:58 PM UTC-4, Gareth magennis wrote:
> > "JackA" wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > Bob Seger & The Silver Bullet Band - Old Time Rock & Roll (1978-79)
> > Stereo.
> > As I may mention a thousand times, many songs, though many recording
> > tracks
> > became available, turned monophonic sounding about the '70's. The thrills
> > of
> > past stereo were gone. I attempted to mix this fine song differently with
> > greater stereo. It may uncover sounds not previously heard. Number of
> > Tracks
> > is (16), but (2) are premixed to stereo. So, it's really like 8-9 Tracks
> > if
> > you delete the duplicates, that serve no purpose. This also includes the
> > unpublished studio ending...
> > http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/oldtimernr-rm3.mp3
> >
> > Too harsh sound?
> >
> > Jack
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jack, there doesn't seem to be anything below about 150 Hz in there.
> >
> > Maybe you should try cutting frequencies you have loads of, rather than
> > boosting stuff you think is lacking.
> >
> > The former method works a lot better IMHO.
>
> You know, Gareth, I agree with you. Yes, the low end needs some attention,
> sounds "thin".
> Might have to lower the higher frequencies, too.
> I'm much more please with this mix; interesting, since it's typically mono
> sounding. But when you break things (tracks) apart, from a denser sound, you
> have to reshape to make it sound somewhat like the hit mix. Sometimes I feel
> it's better to boost key frequencies, especially if you are peaking VU,
> like, for example, when I boosted bass and re-maximized amplitude, the
> entire waveform reduces, sounds strange though.
>
> But, this gives me a better idea why they don't remix, it's time consuming,
> especially if no mixing notes are available.
>
> Thanks! :-)
>
> Jack
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gareth.
>
>
>
> Jack, really, try changing things around, and make your first port of call
> to get rid of all the stuff you have too much of. It might be a revelation.


Actually, I have done that. There are two pairs of tracks mixed to stereo. Before, I had them placed left and right, but that was a mistake [now, at least, solos (guitar/sax) are somewhat centered]. I don't wish to lighten too much, I want to hear what wasn't heard before, if you know what I mean. I did tone it down a little, it was too busy.

>
> The only thing I find works well boosted is low bass/sub, and possibly
> sometimes a little "air" in the HF, or a little bit of 100Hz warmth.

I totally agree.

>
> Most other stuff is better cut out, then everything else is able to surface
> far more naturally.

I like hearing the Maracas, Tambourine and Cowbell that aren't that "clear" in original mix. I'll fiddle with it later, and post again.

Thank you for your input, I could always use another set of ears.

Jack
>
>
>
>
> Gareth.

[JackA]

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 5:52:25 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
> "JackA" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 5:10:58 PM UTC-4, Gareth magennis wrote:
> > "JackA" wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > Bob Seger & The Silver Bullet Band - Old Time Rock & Roll (1978-79)
> > Stereo.
> > As I may mention a thousand times, many songs, though many recording
> > tracks
> > became available, turned monophonic sounding about the '70's. The thrills
> > of
> > past stereo were gone. I attempted to mix this fine song differently with
> > greater stereo. It may uncover sounds not previously heard. Number of
> > Tracks
> > is (16), but (2) are premixed to stereo. So, it's really like 8-9 Tracks
> > if
> > you delete the duplicates, that serve no purpose. This also includes the
> > unpublished studio ending...
> > http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/oldtimernr-rm3.mp3
> >
> > Too harsh sound?
> >
> > Jack
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jack, there doesn't seem to be anything below about 150 Hz in there.
> >
> > Maybe you should try cutting frequencies you have loads of, rather than
> > boosting stuff you think is lacking.
> >
> > The former method works a lot better IMHO.
>
> You know, Gareth, I agree with you. Yes, the low end needs some attention,
> sounds "thin".
> Might have to lower the higher frequencies, too.
> I'm much more please with this mix; interesting, since it's typically mono
> sounding. But when you break things (tracks) apart, from a denser sound, you
> have to reshape to make it sound somewhat like the hit mix. Sometimes I feel
> it's better to boost key frequencies, especially if you are peaking VU,
> like, for example, when I boosted bass and re-maximized amplitude, the
> entire waveform reduces, sounds strange though.
>
> But, this gives me a better idea why they don't remix, it's time consuming,
> especially if no mixing notes are available.
>
> Thanks! :-)
>
> Jack
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gareth.
>
>
>
> Jack, really, try changing things around, and make your first port of call
> to get rid of all the stuff you have too much of. It might be a revelation.
>
> The only thing I find works well boosted is low bass/sub, and possibly
> sometimes a little "air" in the HF, or a little bit of 100Hz warmth.
>
> Most other stuff is better cut out, then everything else is able to surface
> far more naturally.

The "raw" mix, toned some things down, felt too much high frequencies, see what you think, have to run....

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

Jack
>
>
>
>
> Gareth.

[[email protected]]

gareth magennis wrote: "Jack, there doesn't seem to be anything below
about 150 Hz in there.

Maybe you should try cutting frequencies you have loads of, rather than
boosting stuff you think is lacking.

The former method works a lot better IMHO. "

I said it before(but nobody paid attention!): The guy is
interpreting the equal-loudness contour entirely opposite
of what it implies. He seems to think the highest points
on the curve = what we hear best/are most sensitive to!

So he EQs out those parts(the bottom and top), and
boosts the upper-midrange - DOH!

[None]

< thekma @ gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> I said it before

Yeah, over and over and over and over and over again.

> (but nobody paid attention!):

And you're too stupid to figure out why. The all-encompassing stupid
that permeates your existence.

[[email protected]]

"Yeah, over and over and over and over and over again.

> (but nobody paid attention!):

And you're too stupid to figure out why. The all-encompassing stupid
that permeates your existence. "

Shut up! You know NOTHING about
audio production or even how to turn
on an ordinary RADIO. Am I really
worth your time? Do I make you
nervous? Do you have a crush on me
or something?

STOP crashing good threads all over
Usenet!!!!

[None]

< thekma @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> "Yeah, over and over and over and over and over again.
>
>> (but nobody paid attention!):
>
> And you're too stupid to figure out why. The all-encompassing stupid
> that permeates your existence. "
>
> Shut up!
>
> STOP crashing good threads all over Usenet!!!!

When you whine about how you're so smart, and how nobody cares, that's
not really a good thread, li'l buddy. It's just some retard on a
hobbyhorse.

[JackA]

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 8:54:43 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> gareth magennis wrote: "Jack, there doesn't seem to be anything below
> about 150 Hz in there.
>
> Maybe you should try cutting frequencies you have loads of, rather than
> boosting stuff you think is lacking.
>
> The former method works a lot better IMHO. "
>
> I said it before(but nobody paid attention!): The guy is
> interpreting the equal-loudness contour entirely opposite
> of what it implies. He seems to think the highest points
> on the curve = what we hear best/are most sensitive to!

No, you basically said that when you cringed at peak trimming (aka compression). I mentioned I wanted to get nearer to the RMS value of the waveform.

Jack

>
> So he EQs out those parts(the bottom and top), and
> boosts the upper-midrange - DOH!

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "No, you basically said that when you cringed at peak trimming (aka compression). I mentioned I wanted
to get nearer to the RMS value of the waveform. "


I did previously mention your backwards interpretation
of ISO 226:2003, some months prior to my bringing it
up again yesterday. You just missed it or ignored it.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 12:39:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "No, you basically said that when you cringed at peak trimming (aka compression). I mentioned I wanted
> to get nearer to the RMS value of the waveform. "
>
>
> I did previously mention your backwards interpretation
> of ISO 226:2003, some months prior to my bringing it
> up again yesterday. You just missed it or ignored it.

New one: ISO 226:2003 - ...the sound signals are pure tones...

In other words, nothing to do with music. You agree/disagree?

All I know is, if Capitol, LCC remixed Bob Seger, it would be horrific sounding, as their history proves. Like I told Gareth, I now hear things that are washed out [or mixed out or buried] on a spent master tape.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "New one: ISO 226:2003 - ...the sound signals are pure tones...

In other words, nothing to do with music. You agree/disagree? "


There you going again lil buddy, talking out
of your ass- PSSSYCH!! Just pretending
to be someone else. ;)

Seriously though, pure tones were used in the
tests to arrive at both the original Fletcher-Munson
Curve and the current one in that standard I just
named. But they have everything to do with how
the average person perceives ALL sound, and
not just recorded or live music. And each
individual's curve varies from others'.

Just remember, the LOWEST points on the
Contour represent where in the spectrum our
hearing is generally MOST sensitive, and not
the other way 'round. Please EQ with that in
mind.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:34:55 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "New one: ISO 226:2003 - ...the sound signals are pure tones...
>
> In other words, nothing to do with music. You agree/disagree? "
>
>
> There you going again lil buddy, talking out
> of your ass- PSSSYCH!! Just pretending
> to be someone else. ;)
>
> Seriously though, pure tones were used in the
> tests to arrive at both the original Fletcher-Munson
> Curve and the current one in that standard I just
> named. But they have everything to do with how
> the average person perceives ALL sound, and
> not just recorded or live music. And each
> individual's curve varies from others'.
>
> Just remember, the LOWEST points on the
> Contour represent where in the spectrum our
> hearing is generally MOST sensitive, and not
> the other way 'round. Please EQ with that in
> mind.

Most sensitive? Oh, 3 kHz!
Yeah, that participant, Geeon, or Geewhiz, maybe Geoff, often celebrates me for that audio discovery!

Just teasing! Thanks.

Jack :)

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "..., maybe Geoff, often celebrates me for that audio discovery! "


Try again.

[UnsteadyKen[_6_]]

In article: >

JackA says...

> Geeon, or Geewhiz, maybe Geoff, often celebrates me for that audio discovery!
>

FFS Jack, your "audio discovery", and other foibles of the Human
perception system have been known about for years and are taught in UK
schools. I was 11 when our biology teacher demonstrated this effect
along with the other tricks our mind plays on our interpretation of
external stimuli.


Did you never wonder why many consumer amplifiers/receivers are fitted
with a loudness control and just what that control compensates for?


--
Ken O'Meara

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 4:39:37 PM UTC-4, UnsteadyKen wrote:
> In article: >
>
> JackA says...
>
> > Geeon, or Geewhiz, maybe Geoff, often celebrates me for that audio discovery!
> >
>
> FFS Jack, your "audio discovery", and other foibles of the Human
> perception system have been known about for years and are taught in UK
> schools. I was 11 when our biology teacher demonstrated this effect
> along with the other tricks our mind plays on our interpretation of
> external stimuli.

I understand. Thanks. My story is, I often wondered why I selected a 3kHz when audio enhancing music. I really wasn't sure why (at the time it made no sense). Then, when Neil Young was pushing his Pono device, some audio specialist made it known why I favored that particular frequency. You seldom hear talk about it from "engineers", maybe because, as I feel, people don't actually "listen".
>
>
> Did you never wonder why many consumer amplifiers/receivers are fitted
> with a loudness control and just what that control compensates for?

Wait, you did not mention you have to incorporate a tap of the volume potentiometer that is typical for the Loudness control feature. Though, not sure THAT Loudness has anything to do with mid-range, think more bass & treble.

Jack
>
>
> --
> Ken O'Meara

[[email protected]]

UnsteadyKen wrote: "perception system have been known about for years and are taught in UK
schools..."


Do you realize you are replying to someone likely
in the United States?

What I imply by asking that is: I'm ENVIOUS of
your education system over there, Ken! :D I don't
know just what they teach here in U.S. schools,
but, probably nothing useful.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 4:38:35 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "..., maybe Geoff, often celebrates me for that audio discovery! "
>
>
> Try again.

Okay, here you go...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/oldtimernr-rm3.mp3

Website entry:
Bob Seger & The Silver Bullet Band - Old Time Rock & Roll (1978-79) Stereo. As I may mention a thousand times, many songs, though many recording tracks became available, turned monophonic sounding about the '70's. The thrills of past stereo were gone. I attempted to mix this fine song differently with greater stereo, restore the higher frequencies. It may uncover sounds not previously heard. From (16) Tracks, but since two are premixed to stereo, it's more like (8) Tracks. Thanks goes to Gareth Magennis [usenet: rec.audio.pro] for his fine input on sound shaping. This also includes the unpublished studio ending...

Jack

[John Williamson]

On 07/06/2016 22:17, JackA wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 4:39:37 PM UTC-4, UnsteadyKen wrote:
>> FFS Jack, your "audio discovery", and other foibles of the Human
>> perception system have been known about for years and are taught in UK
>> schools. I was 11 when our biology teacher demonstrated this effect
>> along with the other tricks our mind plays on our interpretation of
>> external stimuli.
>
> I understand. Thanks. My story is, I often wondered why I selected a 3kHz when audio enhancing music. I really wasn't sure why (at the time it made no sense). Then, when Neil Young was pushing his Pono device, some audio specialist made it known why I favored that particular frequency. You seldom hear talk about it from "engineers", maybe because, as I feel, people don't actually "listen".
>>
Boosting 3kHz makes no sense at all, while a gentle cut there can make a
rough track sound a little smoother and easier to listen to. Boosting it
makes for ear shredding shrillness, especially when overdone. If you
find 3kHz lacking in ordinary listening, using professionally mastered
tracks, then you may have a hearing or monitoring system problem, but
we've been here many times before. The fifty buck headphones you are so
proud of do not under any circumstances give an accurate picture of
what's coming out of the amplifier.

>>
>> Did you never wonder why many consumer amplifiers/receivers are fitted
>> with a loudness control and just what that control compensates for?
>
> Wait, you did not mention you have to incorporate a tap of the volume potentiometer that is typical for the Loudness control feature. Though, not sure THAT Loudness has anything to do with mid-range, think more bass & treble.
>
The loudness tap on the volume control in a halfway decent consumer
amplifier puts a slight dip in the amplifier response in the 2 to 5kHz
region to compensate for the human hearing system's non linear response
at low levels. This dip is removed or reduced at higher volumes, where
it is not needed.

Some of the very cheap amplifiers used to (very audibly) just apply a
top cut of a few decibels below a selected, fixed gain level. Decent
amps used to have separate volume and loudness controls. You had to
adjust the maximum level and best tonal quality for the room using the
volume and tone controls, then adjust each piece's volume to taste using
the loudness control, with the necessary tonal adjustments fr level
being controlled automatically, possibly by using multiple taps on the
loudness control. The turntables and other signal sources were assumed
to give a flat frequency response for this purpose, though in fact, they
were often anything but flat or linear.



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 5:17:48 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> UnsteadyKen wrote: "perception system have been known about for years and are taught in UK
> schools..."
>
>
> Do you realize you are replying to someone likely
> in the United States?
>
> What I imply by asking that is: I'm ENVIOUS of
> your education system over there, Ken! :D I don't
> know just what they teach here in U.S. schools,
> but, probably nothing useful.

Yeah, and here is the pot' tap I talked about...
http://www.interfacebus.com/loudness-control.png

Loadness? Not sure what that is! :-)

Jack

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 5:44:41 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 07/06/2016 22:17, JackA wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 4:39:37 PM UTC-4, UnsteadyKen wrote:
> >> FFS Jack, your "audio discovery", and other foibles of the Human
> >> perception system have been known about for years and are taught in UK
> >> schools. I was 11 when our biology teacher demonstrated this effect
> >> along with the other tricks our mind plays on our interpretation of
> >> external stimuli.
> >
> > I understand. Thanks. My story is, I often wondered why I selected a 3kHz when audio enhancing music. I really wasn't sure why (at the time it made no sense). Then, when Neil Young was pushing his Pono device, some audio specialist made it known why I favored that particular frequency. You seldom hear talk about it from "engineers", maybe because, as I feel, people don't actually "listen".
> >>
> Boosting 3kHz makes no sense at all



, while a gentle cut there can make a
> rough track sound a little smoother and easier to listen to. Boosting it
> makes for ear shredding shrillness, especially when overdone. If you
> find 3kHz lacking in ordinary listening, using professionally mastered
> tracks, then you may have a hearing or monitoring system problem, but
> we've been here many times before. The fifty buck headphones you are so
> proud of do not under any circumstances give an accurate picture of
> what's coming out of the amplifier.

They were/are $30 headphones; bought them at at Target store, where the audiophiles shop.
> [i]
> >>
> >> Did you never wonder why many consumer amplifiers/receivers are fitted
> >> with a loudness control and just what that control compensates for?
> >
> > Wait, you did not mention you have to incorporate a tap of the volume potentiometer that is typical for the Loudness control feature. Though, not sure THAT Loudness has anything to do with mid-range, think more bass & treble.
> >
> The loudness tap on the volume control in a halfway decent consumer
> amplifier puts a slight dip in the amplifier response in the 2 to 5kHz
> region to compensate for the human hearing system's non linear response
> at low levels. This dip is removed or reduced at higher volumes, where
> it is not needed.
>
> Some of the very cheap amplifiers used to (very audibly) just apply a
> top cut of a few decibels below a selected, fixed gain level. Decent
> amps used to have separate volume and loudness controls. You had to
> adjust the maximum level and best tonal quality for the room using the
> volume and tone controls, then adjust each piece's volume to taste using
> the loudness control, with the necessary tonal adjustments fr level
> being controlled automatically, possibly by using multiple taps on the
> loudness control.


Some had variable Loudness controls.

The turntables and other signal sources were assumed
> to give a flat frequency response for this purpose, though in fact, they
> were often anything but flat or linear.

I built my own cartridge preamp from PC board design to etching and everything else. It rocked. It was nice to find the author/designer, Walter Jung, on the internet to thank him decades later!! He even liked the sound of the snippets on my site [liked the 50's]. Like getting endorsed by your mentor!!

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

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "Though, not sure THAT Loudness has anything to do with mid-range,
think more bass & treble. "


DOH!! Jack?? What have we all been trying to
say to you on here??? Humans hearing maximum
sensitivity is between 1-5KHZ!! Not up above 8khz
nor below 500hz. WHY on earth would you want
a loudness button that boosts the mids?!


Well, I get more satisfaction out of this one by
desperately trying to explain basic concepts, rather
than stalking him all over Usenet, claiming I know
him and calling him every dirty word from A-Z..

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 6:57:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "Though, not sure THAT Loudness has anything to do with mid-range,
> think more bass & treble. "
>
>
> DOH!! Jack?? What have we all been trying to
> say to you on here??? Humans hearing maximum
> sensitivity is between 1-5KHZ!! Not up above 8khz
> nor below 500hz. WHY on earth would you want
> a loudness button that boosts the mids?!

I see, so YOU and ONLY YOU feel everything ever issued is audio perfect and YOU feel there is absolutely nothing that can be done to correct it. That's what you're telling me.

>
>
> Well, I get more satisfaction out of this one by
> desperately trying to explain basic concepts, rather
> than stalking him all over Usenet, claiming I know
> him and calling him every dirty word from A-Z..

I know (think it's Scott's sockpuppet :)

Anyway, let me play with 3kHz so I can gain some applause outside this group.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "I see, so YOU and ONLY YOU feel everything ever issued is audio perfect and YOU feel there is absolutely
nothing that can be done to correct it. That's what you're telling me. "


sigh...

Anyone else wanna have a go - geoff, Mike, John, Scott,
Gareth, Trevor, et al?

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 7:47:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "I see, so YOU and ONLY YOU feel everything ever issued is audio perfect and YOU feel there is absolutely
> nothing that can be done to correct it. That's what you're telling me. "
>
>
> sigh...
>
> Anyone else wanna have a go - geoff, Mike, John, Scott,
> Gareth, Trevor, et al?

I'm in a Class all of my own. If Paul McCartney heard my remix of his Band On The Run, he'd call me Sir Jack!

Jack :)

[Rick Ruskin]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:59:25 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 7:47:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>> JackA wrote: "I see, so YOU and ONLY YOU feel everything ever issued is audio perfect and YOU feel there is absolutely
>> nothing that can be done to correct it. That's what you're telling me. "
>>
>>
>> sigh...
>>
>> Anyone else wanna have a go - geoff, Mike, John, Scott,
>> Gareth, Trevor, et al?
>
>I'm in a Class all of my own. If Paul McCartney heard my remix of his Band On The Run, he'd call me Sir Jack!
>
>Jack :)

He'd call you "Sir Jack-Off.


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

[John Williamson]

On 08/06/2016 00:59, JackA wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 7:47:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>> JackA wrote: "I see, so YOU and ONLY YOU feel everything ever issued is audio perfect and YOU feel there is absolutely
>> nothing that can be done to correct it. That's what you're telling me. "
>>
>>
>> sigh...
>>
>> Anyone else wanna have a go - geoff, Mike, John, Scott,
>> Gareth, Trevor, et al?
>
> I'm in a Class all of my own. If Paul McCartney heard my remix of his Band On The Run, he'd call me Sir Jack!
>
> Jack :)
>
He'd call you something, but it wouldn't be Sir Jack. Jackass would be
one of the politer things.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[UnsteadyKen[_6_]]

In article: >

JackA says...

> Though, not sure THAT Loudness has anything to do with mid-range,
> think more bass & treble.
>
>
Well, if you turn up both bass and treble then the mid range will sound
relatively subdued and if you turn em down then the mids will appear
more prominent.
The specs for the loudness control on my Denon stereo receiver are
+10db/-5db at 50Hz/10kHz.
I've played about with the control on the various amps I've come across
and they do work as advertised, but at a very low volume level, barely
above a whisper.

--
Ken O'Meara

[Trevor]

On 8/06/2016 4:07 PM, UnsteadyKen wrote:
> Well, if you turn up both bass and treble then the mid range will sound
> relatively subdued and if you turn em down then the mids will appear
> more prominent.
> The specs for the loudness control on my Denon stereo receiver are
> +10db/-5db at 50Hz/10kHz.

-5dB at 10kHz? Typo? You want to boost there at very low levels.


> I've played about with the control on the various amps I've come across
> and they do work as advertised, but at a very low volume level, barely
> above a whisper.

Which is why a single loudness switch on an amplifier is useless since
whether that level is a whisper or a roar depends entirely on the
speaker efficiency, room acoustics, and listening distance.

Trevor.

[None]

< TheckMama @ retardsRthecccma . org > wrote in message
...
> There you going again lil buddy, talking out
> of your ass- PSSSYCH!! Just pretending
> to be someone else. ;)

Pretending to be someone who knows what they're talking about is the
best you'll ever do.

Here we have a case of a retarded dumb **** who's too stupid to
comprehend what he's talking about, having a kook fight with a
****stain who's too much of an asshole to care whether he knows what
he's talking about.

Maybe you two lovebirds should get a room. A padded room for retards.
so you don't have to get more brain damage from being dropped on your
head again.

[geoff]

On 8/06/2016 10:11 PM, Trevor wrote:
> On 8/06/2016 4:07 PM, UnsteadyKen wrote:
>> Well, if you turn up both bass and treble then the mid range will sound
>> relatively subdued and if you turn em down then the mids will appear
>> more prominent.
>> The specs for the loudness control on my Denon stereo receiver are
>> +10db/-5db at 50Hz/10kHz.
>
> -5dB at 10kHz? Typo? You want to boost there at very low levels.
>
>
>> I've played about with the control on the various amps I've come across
>> and they do work as advertised, but at a very low volume level, barely
>> above a whisper.
>
> Which is why a single loudness switch on an amplifier is useless since
> whether that level is a whisper or a roar depends entirely on the
> speaker efficiency, room acoustics, and listening distance.
>
> Trevor.
>
>


Exactly. Maybe slightly valid in a quantified turnket system.

And even then a tapped pot with a cap or two is a rather crude
approximation.

geoff

[None]

< thekma @ > soiled his diaper and whined
news:fc76f1ba-4d46-44f1-82a7->
> Well, I get more satisfaction out of this one by
> desperately trying to explain basic concepts, rather
> than stalking him all over Usenet, claiming I know
> him and calling him every dirty word from A-Z.

> What I imply by asking that is: I'm ENVIOUS of
> your education system over there, Ken! :D I don't
> know just what they teach here in U.S. schools,
> but, probably nothing useful.

You're the one stalking me, li'l buddy, and not doing it particularly
well. With all the F-bombs you like to drop, it's both hypocritical
and retarded, the way you whine about it. Are you having a bad week
again? Did the boss yell at you again, for begging to play with his
big knob in the closet?

[None]

< thekma @ dumb****.shortbus.edu > drooled on his lap:

> Do you realize you are replying to someone likely
> in the United States?

So?

You have no idea what anyone teaches in any school. Not even the
two-year college that gave you "mercy diploma" after seven years, just
to get rid of your insufferable retarded stupidity.

[John Williamson]

On 08/06/2016 12:23, geoff wrote:
> On 8/06/2016 10:11 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> Which is why a single loudness switch on an amplifier is useless since
>> whether that level is a whisper or a roar depends entirely on the
>> speaker efficiency, room acoustics, and listening distance.
>
> Exactly. Maybe slightly valid in a quantified turnket system.
>
> And even then a tapped pot with a cap or two is a rather crude
> approximation.
>
Yes, but it's cheap to fit and can be promoted as an improvement over
other systems which don't have one fitted. A proper analogue one would
need at least two LCR networks to control frequency, depth and width of
the notch and 2 taps on the pot to get the wanted response, while a
modern class D amplifier could just do it in the control software.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 2:08:01 AM UTC-4, UnsteadyKen wrote:
> In article: >
>
> JackA says...
>
> > Though, not sure THAT Loudness has anything to do with mid-range,
> > think more bass & treble.
> >
> >
> Well, if you turn up both bass and treble then the mid range will sound
> relatively subdued and if you turn em down then the mids will appear
> more prominent.
> The specs for the loudness control on my Denon stereo receiver are
> +10db/-5db at 50Hz/10kHz.
> I've played about with the control on the various amps I've come across
> and they do work as advertised, but at a very low volume level, barely
> above a whisper.

Nice. Denon good brand! However, I never found any real value from them. Maybe I didn't care to listen to music near whisper quiet.

I mean, really, how can you listen to The Stereo Stones quietly?...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/19thbreakdown.mp3

Jack

>
> --
> Ken O'Meara

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 10:08:08 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:59:25 -0700 (PDT), JackA >
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 7:47:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> >> JackA wrote: "I see, so YOU and ONLY YOU feel everything ever issued is audio perfect and YOU feel there is absolutely
> >> nothing that can be done to correct it. That's what you're telling me. "
> >>
> >>
> >> sigh...
> >>
> >> Anyone else wanna have a go - geoff, Mike, John, Scott,
> >> Gareth, Trevor, et al?
> >
> >I'm in a Class all of my own. If Paul McCartney heard my remix of his Band On The Run, he'd call me Sir Jack!
> >
> >Jack :)
>
> He'd call you "Sir Jack-Off.

If you ever tour NJ, I'll come see you! Yeah, I bet it would be nice to perform in front of someone! :-)

Jack

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

[UnsteadyKen[_6_]]

In article: >

Trevor says...

> -5dB at 10kHz? Typo? You want to boost there at very low levels.
>
Yep: +5db it should have been

--
Ken O'Meara

[JackA]

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 1:28:45 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 08/06/2016 00:59, JackA wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 7:47:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> >> JackA wrote: "I see, so YOU and ONLY YOU feel everything ever issued is audio perfect and YOU feel there is absolutely
> >> nothing that can be done to correct it. That's what you're telling me. "
> >>
> >>
> >> sigh...
> >>
> >> Anyone else wanna have a go - geoff, Mike, John, Scott,
> >> Gareth, Trevor, et al?
> >
> > I'm in a Class all of my own. If Paul McCartney heard my remix of his Band On The Run, he'd call me Sir Jack!
> >
> > Jack :)
> >
> He'd call you something, but it wouldn't be Sir Jack. Jackass would be
> one of the politer things.

John, let's cut through the bull, teach me everything you know, I have a half-minute to spare!

A Sir Jack "original" :)

Jack

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

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 8/06/2016 10:11 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>
>> Which is why a single loudness switch on an amplifier is useless since
>> whether that level is a whisper or a roar depends entirely on the
>> speaker efficiency, room acoustics, and listening distance.
>
>Exactly. Maybe slightly valid in a quantified turnket system.
>
>And even then a tapped pot with a cap or two is a rather crude
>approximation.

The tapped pot system (as used by Dynaco) is really not very useful unless
you know exactly what the speaker efficiency is. The volume control position
that gives you a given sound pressure level is very different between a
Scintilla and an A-7, for instance.

The switch is even worse, but the vast majority of people using the switch
don't use it properly anyway. They turn it on for high volume listening
because they like the added bass.

Go figure. You can't do anything about how people are going to play music
back, all you can do is make it as difficult to screw up as possible.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

On 8/06/2016 9:31 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 08/06/2016 12:23, geoff wrote:
>> On 8/06/2016 10:11 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>> Which is why a single loudness switch on an amplifier is useless since
>>> whether that level is a whisper or a roar depends entirely on the
>>> speaker efficiency, room acoustics, and listening distance.
>>
>> Exactly. Maybe slightly valid in a quantified turnket system.
>>
>> And even then a tapped pot with a cap or two is a rather crude
>> approximation.
>>
> Yes, but it's cheap to fit and can be promoted as an improvement over
> other systems which don't have one fitted. A proper analogue one would
> need at least two LCR networks to control frequency, depth and width of
> the notch and 2 taps on the pot to get the wanted response, while a
> modern class D amplifier could just do it in the control software.


Doesn't have to be a class D power amp to have a microprocessor
controlled pre-amp with DSP to do that and far more. In fact many non
class D amps have done just that for many years.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 9/06/2016 6:30 PM, Trevor wrote:

>
>
> Doesn't have to be a class D power amp to have a microprocessor
> controlled pre-amp with DSP to do that and far more. In fact many non
> class D amps have done just that for many years.
>
> Trevor.
>
>

But it still needs to know the actual sound pressure level to do
anything meaningful.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 9/06/2016 5:36 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 9/06/2016 6:30 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> Doesn't have to be a class D power amp to have a microprocessor
>> controlled pre-amp with DSP to do that and far more. In fact many non
>> class D amps have done just that for many years.
>
> But it still needs to know the actual sound pressure level to do
> anything meaningful.


Which is simply set by the user in any programmable amplifier. That can
either be done (semi) accurately using an SPL meter (common practice in
setting up HT systems properly) or simply adjusted by user to suit their
taste.
Even the latter is better than nothing.

In any case my point is a class D amplifier is NOT a prerequisite.

Trevor.

[JackA]

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 8:32:55 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> Bob Seger & The Silver Bullet Band - Old Time Rock & Roll (1978-79) Stereo. As I may mention a thousand times, many songs, though many recording tracks became available, turned monophonic sounding about the '70's. The thrills of past stereo were gone. I attempted to mix this fine song differently with greater stereo. It may uncover sounds not previously heard. Number of Tracks is (16), but (2) are premixed to stereo. So, it's really like 8-9 Tracks if you delete the duplicates, that serve no purpose. This also includes the unpublished studio ending...
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/oldtimernr-rm3.mp3
>
> Too harsh sound?
>
> Jack

My final, Stereo mix (until next week!! :)

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/oldtimernr-rm3.mp3

Jack
p.s. This (above) incorporates a Mild or Light Dynamic boost (via Goldwave software). Most people seem to favor it.