[hank alrich]

geoff wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/25/2011 11:26 PM, hank alrich wrote:
I get e-mail from several manufacturers of audio
related products inviting me to "like" them on their
facebook page.

Doesn't it sound a bit wet - "I've got 763 people who 'like' me on
Facebook". Wow.

geoff

763/600,000,000+

Yep, now we're gittin' somewhere.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/26/2011 10:56 AM, hank alrich wrote:

Yesterday I had a meeting with a gal who runs a booking agency.

For the venue bookers and promoters
she's working with it's not about one's fan page; it's about verifiable
numbers of attendees at shows for which admission was paid, i'e. keeping
a database of one's draw.

That certainly makes sense, but it's sooooo much easier just
to look on Facebook. g

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/26/2011 12:20 AM, Les Cargill wrote:

Right! Exactly. Although my first CD player cost more than
$300.

I was a late bloomer and I think I paid about $120 for my first CD
player. Still have it and it still works.

I abandoned making a living at music around 1982. It's
been a nice hobby since then. I knew what "recoupable" meant,

I see. So if everyone who played music was like you, where's our music
going to come from in the future?

How *ever* will we manage?

Will we only be able to hear music
from people who are just getting started in the commercial field and
will soon burn out? Or maybe we'll go back to the old days when
musicians dedicated their life to their career and worked hard to be
successful.


That was when rent was $100 or $300 a month and you could make that in a
night or four.

Eh? You can get a lockout for a week or a day or two for a
few kilodollars. Could back in the day, too.

Yes, but major artists don't make records in a day or two. It's not in
their DNA.


Hie them to the bus, then. They need more road
time...





--
Les Cargill

[Arny Krueger]

"geoff" wrote in message

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/25/2011 11:26 PM, hank alrich wrote:
I get e-mail from several manufacturers of audio
related products inviting me to "like" them on their
facebook page.

Doesn't it sound a bit wet - "I've got 763 people who
'like' me on Facebook". Wow.


Acquaintances email me periodically saying something like: Our commercial
venture is engaged in a death match with other similar ventures to see who
can get the most *action* on this social networking site you never heard or,
or maybe you did. So, go join the site and vote for us.

Obviously, all of the above are spinning their wheels in a business sense,
because they won't even get 15 minutes of fame if they *win*.

The only winner in any sense are the social networking site because this
scam will inflate their user lists. And will the people who sign up for this
scam ever return to the site or the person doing the emailing? Probably not.

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 4/18/2011 11:46 AM, Leo Andrews wrote:
Hi,

I haven't read every post in this thread, but I have a question. Here is my
understanding of MP3 bit rates, referring to a 128K MP3 file.

64K mono is the same per-channel quality as 128K stereo
90K or so mono is the same per-channel quality as 128K *joint* stereo

As it was explained to me, joint stereo trades quality for separation. Was
someone blowing smoke, or is there some legitimacy to this information?

[Anahata]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:29:55 -0400, mcp6453 wrote:

As it was explained to me, joint stereo trades quality for separation.

Not exactly.
Joint stereo takes advantage of the fact that at any given moment the two
channels will have very similar spectral distribution, so some of the
data doesn't have to be duplicated. That means more bits available for
improving the quality. You don't get a reduction in separation by using
joint stereo, but it doesn't work if the two channels are completely
different.

All you really need to know i sthat joint stereo at 128k is better than
separate stereo (i.e. 2 x 64k), PROVIDED that it's genuine stereo sound.

--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444

[ChrisCoaster]

On Apr 25, 7:31*am, "Neil Gould" wrote:
geoff wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
geoff wrote:

The quality of mp3 audio would only make a difference to those that
care about the differences, and those that care can grasp those
differences quite easily. Meanwhile, people creating music can sell
more of it because for so many, those differences just don't matter,
and in many cases, for good reason.

So why do we bother trying to do good ?

Why not? Distributed media (radio, records, tapes, mp3, whatever) has never
sounded as good as the original recordings. As I see it, the challenge is to
get as close as possible to the original on the distributed media, and that
takes experience, insight, talent and skill.

--
Neil
___________________
And what are masters stored on nowadays - as opposed to in the Beatle/
Stones era?

-CC

[Neil Gould]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Apr 25, 7:31 am, "Neil Gould" wrote:
geoff wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
geoff wrote:

The quality of mp3 audio would only make a difference to those that
care about the differences, and those that care can grasp those
differences quite easily. Meanwhile, people creating music can sell
more of it because for so many, those differences just don't
matter, and in many cases, for good reason.

So why do we bother trying to do good ?

Why not? Distributed media (radio, records, tapes, mp3, whatever)
has never sounded as good as the original recordings. As I see it,
the challenge is to get as close as possible to the original on the
distributed media, and that takes experience, insight, talent and
skill.

___________________
And what are masters stored on nowadays - as opposed to in the Beatle/
Stones era?

Today, the storage medium isn't the issue, it's the format of the audio
files.

--
Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
And what are masters stored on nowadays - as opposed to in the Beatle/
Stones era?

At least one major label is storing DLTs with safeties on 2".
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ChrisCoaster]

On Apr 28, 7:45*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
And what are masters stored on nowadays - as opposed to in the Beatle/
Stones era?

At least one major label is storing DLTs with safeties on 2".
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
______________

In English?

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Apr 28, 7:45=A0am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
And what are masters stored on nowadays - as opposed to in the Beatle/
Stones era?

At least one major label is storing DLTs with safeties on 2".

In English?

DLT is "Digital Linear Tape." It's a common computer backup format;
square cartridge with 1/2" evaporated metal tape inside. Looks like
the old DEC TK-50 cartridges but unlike the TK-50 it's fast and reliable.
Long term stability? Nobody knows.

2" is 2" wide analogue open reel, usually 24 track although sometimes
you can convince people to take the better-sounding 16 track format.
Long term stability is pretty good now that we know how to avoid sticky-shed.
--scott

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