DAW Copy/Replace - A True Savior

[JackA]

My memory of this song on CD, is garbled near the end. Seems a better source was later used (longer ending). However, the "sn" portion below sounds a tape edit, doesn't flow nicely. Was I going to leave it as others published? Heck no, they just look for money, not perfection in sound! A Copy/Replace feature fixed the annoyance! Also, on the mono mix this doesn't occur...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/westernunion-sn.mp3

Digitally enhanced!...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/westernunion.mp3

Jack

[JackA]

On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 8:03:14 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> My memory of this song on CD, is garbled near the end. Seems a better source was later used (longer ending). However, the "sn" portion below sounds a tape edit, doesn't flow nicely. Was I going to leave it as others published? Heck no, they just look for money, not perfection in sound! A Copy/Replace feature fixed the annoyance! Also, on the mono mix this doesn't occur....
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/westernunion-sn.mp3
>
> Digitally enhanced!...
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/westernunion.mp3
>
> Jack

I purchased a (4) CD set, just for (1) remix of a Top 40 song (Chairmen Of The Board). Tom Moulton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Moulton made it. Never did think much of Tom's (stereo) mixing, sort of amateurish sounding. The remix was flooded with bass. Yuck! Put amateurs in charge, and they drive people back to vinyl records.

I get reports that Tom is a hoarder (stolen property), has some material of Sun Records (copyright holders).

Jack

[JackA]

On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 8:03:14 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> My memory of this song on CD, is garbled near the end. Seems a better source was later used (longer ending). However, the "sn" portion below sounds a tape edit, doesn't flow nicely. Was I going to leave it as others published? Heck no, they just look for money, not perfection in sound! A Copy/Replace feature fixed the annoyance! Also, on the mono mix this doesn't occur....
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/westernunion-sn.mp3
>
> Digitally enhanced!...
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/westernunion.mp3
>
> Jack

There HAS to be SOMEONE ELSE who enjoys enhancing audio/music!! Speak up!
I mean, you guys have that expensive software, I stand firm with budget software (< $50).
As I mentioned, Sterling Sound (NYC) did nothing BUT enhance sound, and made a bundle!! I have yet to hear them remix anything!! Actually, Bob Ludwig realized the potential and left there to hoard some cash of his own!!

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/7/2016 12:38 PM, JackA wrote:
> There HAS to be SOMEONE ELSE who enjoys enhancing audio/music!! Speak up!

"Enhancing" covers a lot of ground. I really don't think this crowd is
really interested in what you're doing to already produced and sometimes
classic, that may have got buggered up somewhere on the long road
between the studio and you.

I "enhance" original recordings that I make or that are brought to me. I
don't try to re-do someone else's hard work.



--

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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 3:27:59 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 9/7/2016 12:38 PM, JackA wrote:
> > There HAS to be SOMEONE ELSE who enjoys enhancing audio/music!! Speak up!
>
> "Enhancing" covers a lot of ground. I really don't think this crowd is
> really interested in what you're doing to already produced and sometimes
> classic, that may have got buggered up somewhere on the long road
> between the studio and you.
>
> I "enhance" original recordings that I make or that are brought to me. I
> don't try to re-do someone else's hard work.

I see. If this newsgroup was R.A.P. - Rid Automobile Pollution, you'd argue horses are fine, and there is no need to "improve" anything.

Jack

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

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: ""Enhancing" covers a lot of ground. I really don't
think this crowd is really interested in what you're doing to already
produced and sometimes classic, that may have got buggered up
somewhere on the long road between the studio and you.

I "enhance" original recordings that I make or that are brought to me. I
don't try to re-do someone else's hard work. "

Uhm Mike: Exactly what do you think has been
passed off on the masses as "remastered" for
the last 15-20 years? And why I won't buy it?

[JackA]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:59:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote: ""Enhancing" covers a lot of ground. I really don't
> think this crowd is really interested in what you're doing to already
> produced and sometimes classic, that may have got buggered up
> somewhere on the long road between the studio and you.
>
> I "enhance" original recordings that I make or that are brought to me. I
> don't try to re-do someone else's hard work. "
>
> Uhm Mike: Exactly what do you think has been
> passed off on the masses as "remastered" for
> the last 15-20 years? And why I won't buy it?

Before you begin to criticize, you must first understand the foundation of audio. In my opinion, many improvements can be made to existing audio.
Unlike you, I do not live in a prefect world. You and Mike would have left this as you found it, looking brick-walled, with no chance of audio improvement. I tone down what bothers me (bass frequencies), remaximize, and low and behold, the waveform now looks like I'd expect it to look like...

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

Thank you.

Jack

[Trevor]

On 8/09/2016 5:27 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 9/7/2016 12:38 PM, JackA wrote:
>> There HAS to be SOMEONE ELSE who enjoys enhancing audio/music!! Speak up!
>
> "Enhancing" covers a lot of ground. I really don't think this crowd is
> really interested in what you're doing to already produced and sometimes
> classic, that may have got buggered up somewhere on the long road
> between the studio and you.
>
> I "enhance" original recordings that I make or that are brought to me. I
> don't try to re-do someone else's hard work.

Must admit I do these days if I like the song and can't stand what they
have done with it. That often means cutting the cRap out of songs now
where the producer has simply decided it would increase the market,
rather than improve the song at all. I don't care personally what others
choose to listen to, but why does it have to be added so often where it
is completely inappropriate? Now you may simply say listen to something
else, and I usually do, but there are a few I have "fixed" that I now
enjoy, and that is fine by me. In fact the first song I ever cut bits
out of was back in the day before CD's and PC's even existed and I had
to edit my tape! :-) Always preferred my version of "I saw her again
last night" without the false start. I know others disagree, and that's
their choice.

Then there are live albums with minutes of applause I'm happy to trim
off for my listening, or noises that don't belong and are easily fixed
these days. And plenty more I might attack if I had the time and could
be bothered. Most are simply not worth the effort of course.

Trevor.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 10:49:19 PM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> On 8/09/2016 5:27 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> > On 9/7/2016 12:38 PM, JackA wrote:
> >> There HAS to be SOMEONE ELSE who enjoys enhancing audio/music!! Speak up!
> >
> > "Enhancing" covers a lot of ground. I really don't think this crowd is
> > really interested in what you're doing to already produced and sometimes
> > classic, that may have got buggered up somewhere on the long road
> > between the studio and you.
> >
> > I "enhance" original recordings that I make or that are brought to me. I
> > don't try to re-do someone else's hard work.
>
> Must admit I do these days if I like the song and can't stand what they
> have done with it. That often means cutting the cRap out of songs now
> where the producer has simply decided it would increase the market,
> rather than improve the song at all. I don't care personally what others
> choose to listen to, but why does it have to be added so often where it
> is completely inappropriate? Now you may simply say listen to something
> else, and I usually do, but there are a few I have "fixed" that I now
> enjoy, and that is fine by me. In fact the first song I ever cut bits
> out of was back in the day before CD's and PC's even existed and I had
> to edit my tape! :-) Always preferred my version of "I saw her again
> last night" without the false start. I know others disagree, and that's
> their choice.
>
> Then there are live albums with minutes of applause I'm happy to trim
> off for my listening, or noises that don't belong and are easily fixed
> these days. And plenty more I might attack if I had the time and could
> be bothered. Most are simply not worth the effort of course.
>
> Trevor.

Trevor does have a point. Personally, I love studio talk followed by the song w/ count-off. Sadly, for EMI's Legendary Masters series, the majority didn't care for the "chat", they just wanted the music.

Jack

[[email protected]]

Always preferred my version of "I saw her again
> last night" without the false start. I know others disagree, and that's
> their choice.
>
>

funny you should bring that up.

I just saw the M&P special on PBS and they discussed this very detail.

Yes it was a false start but they decided it was great and left it in.

Until I saw this, it never occurred to me that it was a "mistake" it seems perfect.

m

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/8/2016 9:02 AM, wrote:
> Always preferred my version of "I saw her again
>> last night" without the false start. I know others disagree, and that's
>> their choice.

> I just saw the M&P special on PBS and they discussed this very detail.
> Yes it was a false start but they decided it was great and left it in.
> Until I saw this, it never occurred to me that it was a "mistake" it seems perfect.


A lot of people like to feel like they're "on the inside," but a little
of this goes a long way. You hear it too many times and it's no longer
all that cool. Most people just don't play the track, but I guess some
will modify it to their liking. That's fine, but in the opinion of the
record producer, it's something that most people will enjoy, or at least
not mind hearing. And it makes that take unique since there will (or
are) certainly be alternates in circulation.



--

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

[JackA]

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 9:02:42 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Always preferred my version of "I saw her again
> > last night" without the false start. I know others disagree, and that's
> > their choice.
> >
> >
>
> funny you should bring that up.
>
> I just saw the M&P special on PBS and they discussed this very detail.
>
> Yes it was a false start but they decided it was great and left it in.
>
> Until I saw this, it never occurred to me that it was a "mistake" it seems perfect.
>
> m

But, with California Dreamin', music wasn't meant exclusively for M&P, but maybe Barry McGuire. Hard to say who wrote what, it's so tangled...

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

Even with the "official" M&P release, Barry still can be heard singing!

Jack

[JackA]

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 9:02:42 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Always preferred my version of "I saw her again
> > last night" without the false start. I know others disagree, and that's
> > their choice.
> >
> >
>
> funny you should bring that up.
>
> I just saw the M&P special on PBS and they discussed this very detail.
>
> Yes it was a false start but they decided it was great and left it in.
>
> Until I saw this, it never occurred to me that it was a "mistake" it seems perfect.
>
> m

Mark, Jim Liddane (ISA, Ireland) told me a story where a music score was written, and the recording would be in a trunk of a car, hoping to find a decent group or singer to achieve a hit with it. Here's my story to verify...

Frankie & The Classicals - What Shall I Do? (1967) Mono (special mix). This song captured the attention of Bill Buster of Eric Records when I initially posted a crude stereo mix snippet. It was Tom Diehl (TopShelfOldies) who brought it to my attention that multiple artists utilized the (music) backing track hoping to score a hit. Honey Townsend (instrumental, Mala Records) opens this fine Philly regional hit. Kent Records, a division of Ace Records (UK), published it with an instrumental/spoken word intro that (DJ) Jerry Blavat initially told the record company (Calla Records, NY) to drop, since it's difficult to dance to. Other artists, such as The Essex, also attempted to score a hit with the backing track...

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

It was Jim who asked me if I was a recording engineer, probably due to my audio "enhancements", great, friendly person (once a DJ in the States).

Jack

[None]

< theckmah @ braindamage . retardsRtheckmah . nut> wrote...
> Exactly what do you think has been
> passed off on the masses as "remastered" for
> the last 15-20 years? And why I won't buy it?

Nobody gives a **** what you won't buy, or why you keep mutilating the
rotting head of the dead hobbyhorse that't festering in your bed.
Thecccckkkhhhmah sleeps with the horses.

[Trevor]

On 8/09/2016 11:02 PM, wrote:
> Always preferred my version of "I saw her again
>> last night" without the false start. I know others disagree, and that's
>> their choice.
>
> funny you should bring that up.
>
> I just saw the M&P special on PBS and they discussed this very detail.
>
> Yes it was a false start but they decided it was great and left it in.

Yes, I always realised it was a decision to leave it in, not exactly
something that would slip their attention when recording it.
And as I said, there were two camps at the time, those who loved it, and
those who thought they should have fixed it. As always you can't please
everybody, but neither camp is right or wrong. Just an artistic
preference. I simply decided to do something about my preference as an
exercise to see how well I could. Most people didn't care anyway, even
if they had a preference. Which is fortunate since it sold a lot a
records, and very few people could do anything about it themselves at
the time.

>
> Until I saw this, it never occurred to me that it was a "mistake" it seems perfect.

Bet you didn't own the record then, it's hardly something that goes
unnoticed if you are actually listening.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 8/09/2016 11:37 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 9/8/2016 9:02 AM, wrote:
>> Always preferred my version of "I saw her again
>>> last night" without the false start. I know others disagree, and that's
>>> their choice.
>
>> I just saw the M&P special on PBS and they discussed this very detail.
>> Yes it was a false start but they decided it was great and left it in.
>> Until I saw this, it never occurred to me that it was a "mistake" it
>> seems perfect.
>
>
> A lot of people like to feel like they're "on the inside," but a little
> of this goes a long way. You hear it too many times and it's no longer
> all that cool.

Exactly my opinion. Same goes for too much applause on live recordings.
Boosts the artists ego's perhaps, but not something I want to listen to
repeatedly if I actually like the album. Since I've recorded a lot of
live concerts myself, I often have this discussion when they think I
have faded too early. The problem is of course they just want to sell
records, whether you still like all those decisions a year or decade
later is not relevant to them at the time. But may be to the listener.


> Most people just don't play the track, but I guess some
> will modify it to their liking. That's fine, but in the opinion of the
> record producer, it's something that most people will enjoy, or at least
> not mind hearing. And it makes that take unique since there will (or
> are) certainly be alternates in circulation.

That's the thing, there weren't at the time. A lot easier for anyone
with a computer to "remaster" to their hearts content now of course.
These days of course they can just add the alternative cut as a bonus
track and let the buyer decide which they prefer. Not something anyone
would do with a vinyl LP though.

And the producers opinion is just that, an opinion you may or may not
agree with. Hell the artists themselves often don't agree with the
producer! Been in the middle of that fight many times myself. So why
should any listener think the producers decision is *always* the best?
And even the producer has been known to change their mind later.

Trevor.

[Gray_Wolf]

On 9/7/2016 9:49 PM, Trevor wrote:
> On 8/09/2016 5:27 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 9/7/2016 12:38 PM, JackA wrote:
>>> There HAS to be SOMEONE ELSE who enjoys enhancing audio/music!! Speak up!
>>
>> "Enhancing" covers a lot of ground. I really don't think this crowd is
>> really interested in what you're doing to already produced and sometimes
>> classic, that may have got buggered up somewhere on the long road
>> between the studio and you.
>>
>> I "enhance" original recordings that I make or that are brought to me. I
>> don't try to re-do someone else's hard work.
>
> Must admit I do these days if I like the song and can't stand what they have
> done with it. That often means cutting the cRap out of songs now where the
> producer has simply decided it would increase the market, rather than improve
> the song at all. I don't care personally what others choose to listen to, but
> why does it have to be added so often where it is completely inappropriate? Now
> you may simply say listen to something else, and I usually do, but there are a
> few I have "fixed" that I now enjoy, and that is fine by me. In fact the first
> song I ever cut bits out of was back in the day before CD's and PC's even
> existed and I had to edit my tape! :-) Always preferred my version of "I saw her
> again last night" without the false start. I know others disagree, and that's
> their choice.
>
> Then there are live albums with minutes of applause I'm happy to trim off for my
> listening, or noises that don't belong and are easily fixed these days. And
> plenty more I might attack if I had the time and could be bothered. Most are
> simply not worth the effort of course.
>
> Trevor.
>

I cut noise and applause too. I'm more interested in the guitar so I'll cut a
out lot of other instruments' solos in the group's performance. 30 min. drum
solos, Flamenco dance steps and such get old real fast. Audition CS6 is good at
this. I just casually highlight the undesired parts and hit delete. Audition is
very good at keeping the beat on track and other things to make the splice
almost seamless. Sure beats editing tape.

[Trevor]

On 10/09/2016 10:42 AM, gray_wolf wrote:
> I cut noise and applause too. I'm more interested in the guitar so I'll
> cut a out lot of other instruments' solos in the group's performance. 30
> min. drum solos, Flamenco dance steps and such get old real fast.
> Audition CS6 is good at this. I just casually highlight the undesired
> parts and hit delete. Audition is very good at keeping the beat on track
> and other things to make the splice almost seamless.

> Sure beats editing tape.

You can say that again! I've said that for a couple of decades, but
still amazes me some actually disagree.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

I tend to take the first edition of anything - on
CD or vinyl - as canonical. Leave in the imperfections,
the inconsistent levels, that dropout 2/3 way through,
etc.

[JackA]

On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 8:50:18 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> I tend to take the first edition of anything - on
> CD or vinyl - as canonical. Leave in the imperfections,
> the inconsistent levels, that dropout 2/3 way through,
> etc.

First edition of what, 45, LP, reel tape, cassette, 8 track, CD, SACD, etc.?

Jack