[Robert Morein]

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Bob Dylan says the quality of modern recordings is
"atrocious," and even the songs on his new album sounded much better in the
studio than on disc.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ogy+NewsNews-2

Arny, you got a problem wid dat?

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Bob Dylan says the quality of
modern recordings is "atrocious," and even the songs on
his new album sounded much better in the studio than on
disc.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ogy+NewsNews-2

Arny, you got a problem wid dat?

No problem, I probably would agree with him, if we both sat down and
auditioned the same recordings.

I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues of recordings
origionally issued on CD in the early-mid 80s is atrocious because of the
dynamic range compression that also seems to be endemic in modern releases
these days.

[MINe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Bob Dylan says the quality of
modern recordings is "atrocious," and even the songs on
his new album sounded much better in the studio than on
disc.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...News&storyID=2
006-08-22T183959Z_01_N22395766_RTRUKOC_0_US-LEISURE-DYLAN.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsA
rt-L3-Technology+NewsNews-2

Arny, you got a problem wid dat?

No problem, I probably would agree with him, if we both sat down and
auditioned the same recordings.

I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues of recordings
origionally issued on CD in the early-mid 80s is atrocious because of the
dynamic range compression that also seems to be endemic in modern releases
these days.

The Dylan SACD hybrid box is still available at yourmusic, sixteen discs
for under $100 plus tax.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Bob Dylan says the quality of
modern recordings is "atrocious," and even the songs on
his new album sounded much better in the studio than on
disc.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...News&storyID=2
006-08-22T183959Z_01_N22395766_RTRUKOC_0_US-LEISURE-DYLAN.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsA
rt-L3-Technology+NewsNews-2

Arny, you got a problem wid dat?

No problem, I probably would agree with him, if we both
sat down and auditioned the same recordings.

I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues of
recordings origionally issued on CD in the early-mid 80s
is atrocious because of the dynamic range compression
that also seems to be endemic in modern releases these
days.

The Dylan SACD hybrid box is still available at
yourmusic, sixteen discs for under $100 plus tax.

No doubt listed under "dead formats".

So, do these recordings have their dynamics compressed or not?

[soundhaspriority]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Bob Dylan says the quality of
modern recordings is "atrocious," and even the songs on
his new album sounded much better in the studio than on
disc.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ogy+NewsNews-2

Arny, you got a problem wid dat?

No problem, I probably would agree with him, if we both sat down and
auditioned the same recordings.

I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues of recordings
origionally issued on CD in the early-mid 80s is atrocious because of the
dynamic range compression that also seems to be endemic in modern releases
these days.
But with his stature and fortune, doesn't Dylan control the mix? This is
strong evidence that vinyl is superior to digital.

[Arny Krueger]

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Bob Dylan says the quality of
modern recordings is "atrocious," and even the songs on
his new album sounded much better in the studio than on
disc.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ogy+NewsNews-2

Arny, you got a problem wid dat?

No problem, I probably would agree with him, if we both
sat down and auditioned the same recordings.

I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues of
recordings origionally issued on CD in the early-mid 80s
is atrocious because of the dynamic range compression
that also seems to be endemic in modern releases these
days.

But with his stature and fortune, doesn't Dylan control
the mix?

We're not talking mixing, we're talking mastering.

This is strong evidence that vinyl is superior to digital.

Total nonsense, because we're comparing CDs mastered in the 80s with CD
mastered in Y2K+.

[MINe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Bob Dylan says the quality of
modern recordings is "atrocious," and even the songs on
his new album sounded much better in the studio than on
disc.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...gyNews&storyID
=2
006-08-22T183959Z_01_N22395766_RTRUKOC_0_US-LEISURE-DYLAN.xml&WTmodLoc=New
sA
rt-L3-Technology+NewsNews-2

Arny, you got a problem wid dat?

No problem, I probably would agree with him, if we both
sat down and auditioned the same recordings.

I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues of
recordings origionally issued on CD in the early-mid 80s
is atrocious because of the dynamic range compression
that also seems to be endemic in modern releases these
days.

The Dylan SACD hybrid box is still available at
yourmusic, sixteen discs for under $100 plus tax.

No doubt listed under "dead formats".

No, "box sets." :-) As players are available and these SACDs exist,
there's no reason someone interested in the collection shouldn't take
advantage.

So, do these recordings have their dynamics compressed or not?

Probably no more so than the masters. Certainly not the modern crunchy
loudness compression some of us dislike.

Stephen

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
: "soundhaspriority" wrote in message
:
: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
: news : "Robert Morein" wrote in message
:
:
: LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Bob Dylan says the quality of
: modern recordings is "atrocious," and even the songs
on
: his new album sounded much better in the studio than
on
: disc.
:
:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ogy+NewsNews-2
:
: Arny, you got a problem wid dat?
:
: No problem, I probably would agree with him, if we both
: sat down and auditioned the same recordings.
:
: I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues of
: recordings origionally issued on CD in the early-mid
80s
: is atrocious because of the dynamic range compression
: that also seems to be endemic in modern releases these
: days.
:
: But with his stature and fortune, doesn't Dylan control
: the mix?
:
: We're not talking mixing, we're talking mastering.
:
: This is strong evidence that vinyl is superior to
digital.
:
: Total nonsense, because we're comparing CDs mastered in
the 80s with CD
: mastered in Y2K+.
:
Arney you should be an Olympic Gymnast. That was an
excellent backflip with double twist ;-) Correct me *IF* I
am wrong here but don't we have 1 master tape that is then
mixed for CD and the same master tape that is then mixed
(RIAA EQed) for vinyl?

Regards TT

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Bob Dylan says the quality of
modern recordings is "atrocious," and even the songs
on his new album sounded much better in the studio
than on disc.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...gyNews&storyID
=2
006-08-22T183959Z_01_N22395766_RTRUKOC_0_US-LEISURE-DYLAN.xml&WTmodLoc=New
sA
rt-L3-Technology+NewsNews-2

Arny, you got a problem wid dat?

No problem, I probably would agree with him, if we both
sat down and auditioned the same recordings.

I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues of
recordings origionally issued on CD in the early-mid
80s is atrocious because of the dynamic range
compression that also seems to be endemic in modern
releases these days.

The Dylan SACD hybrid box is still available at
yourmusic, sixteen discs for under $100 plus tax.

No doubt listed under "dead formats".

No, "box sets." :-) As players are available and these
SACDs exist, there's no reason someone interested in the
collection shouldn't take advantage.

So, do these recordings have their dynamics compressed
or not?

Probably no more so than the masters.

So you have no actual practical knowlege?

Certainly not the
modern crunchy loudness compression some of us dislike.

There is no guarantee of that.

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news "Robert Morein" wrote in message


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Bob Dylan says the quality of
modern recordings is "atrocious," and even the songs
on his new album sounded much better in the studio
than on disc.


http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ogy+NewsNews-2
Arny, you got a problem wid dat?

No problem, I probably would agree with him, if we both
sat down and auditioned the same recordings.

I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues of
recordings origionally issued on CD in the early-mid
80s is atrocious because of the dynamic range
compression that also seems to be endemic in modern
releases these days.

But with his stature and fortune, doesn't Dylan control
the mix?

We're not talking mixing, we're talking mastering.

This is strong evidence that vinyl is superior to
digital.

Total nonsense, because we're comparing CDs mastered in
the 80s with CD mastered in Y2K+.

Arney you should be an Olympic Gymnast. That was an
excellent backflip with double twist ;-)

Far less so than the claim that Dylan's comments were "strong evidence that
vinyl is superior to
digital." Now that's a reach if not a blatant troll.


Correct me *IF*
I am wrong here but don't we have 1 master tape that is
then mixed for CD and the same master tape that is then
mixed (RIAA EQed) for vinyl?

As a rule, remixes are tremendously rare. I suspect that the word you are
looking for is "mastered".

As a rule there is one master tape that resulted from mixing-down of a
collection of individual tracks. There is at least one track for each
subgroup, vocalist and/or instrument. A few instruments such as drums that
have various distinct components may be individually tracked (parallel
tracks). Some subgroups, instruments or voices may be added in the form of
segments that are shorter than the entire piece (serial tracks).

Once a master tape is reviewed and finalized, it may be remastered any
number of times for various purposes and formats. There are good reasons to
remaster music for FM and TV, for example. Back in the days when people
still took the LP and cassette tape formats seriously, unique masters were
made for them. The recipie or making a LP master is pretty well known -
throw away the deep bass, make the remaining bass mono, and squish the
dynamics and power response at the very highest frequencies, if the master
tape was wideband and/or highly dynamic.

There may also be addtional layers of masters - IOW a LP grand master was
made to exploit the general properties of the LP format, and then individual
cutting masters may have been made from the LP grand master, that exploited
the properties of individual cutting lathes. It depended on how many LPs
were expected to be produced, and at how many different plants. It is well
known that a LP lacquer should be plated within 24 hours of cutting, and one
way to do that would be to cut it at the pressing plant. Various pressing
plants may have had cutting lathes that differed.

While its full of self-congratulatory hype and golden ear dogma, some might
find this article educational:
http://www.stereophile.com/musicreco...72/index1.html

[MINe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues of
recordings origionally issued on CD in the early-mid
80s is atrocious because of the dynamic range
compression that also seems to be endemic in modern
releases these days.

The Dylan SACD hybrid box is still available at
yourmusic, sixteen discs for under $100 plus tax.

No doubt listed under "dead formats".

No, "box sets." :-) As players are available and these
SACDs exist, there's no reason someone interested in the
collection shouldn't take advantage.

So, do these recordings have their dynamics compressed
or not?

Probably no more so than the masters.

So you have no actual practical knowlege?

Of the masters? Of course not.

Certainly not the
modern crunchy loudness compression some of us dislike.

There is no guarantee of that.

No, there isn't, but secondary sources lead me to believe it.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues
of recordings origionally issued on CD in the
early-mid 80s is atrocious because of the dynamic
range compression that also seems to be endemic in
modern releases these days.

The Dylan SACD hybrid box is still available at
yourmusic, sixteen discs for under $100 plus tax.

No doubt listed under "dead formats".

No, "box sets." :-) As players are available and these
SACDs exist, there's no reason someone interested in the
collection shouldn't take advantage.

So, do these recordings have their dynamics compressed
or not?

Probably no more so than the masters.

So you have no actual practical knowlege?

Of the masters? Of course not.

No silly, of the recordings. If the dynamics are objectionably compressed
then you would be able to hear it if you had any real-world experience with
the recordings, right?

Certainly not the
modern crunchy loudness compression some of us dislike.

There is no guarantee of that.

No, there isn't, but secondary sources lead me to believe
it.

Other sources tell an entirely different story. So now we're down to dueling
secondary sources.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues
of recordings origionally issued on CD in the
early-mid 80s is atrocious because of the dynamic
range compression that also seems to be endemic in
modern releases these days.

The Dylan SACD hybrid box is still available at
yourmusic, sixteen discs for under $100 plus tax.

No doubt listed under "dead formats".

No, "box sets." :-) As players are available and these
SACDs exist, there's no reason someone interested in the
collection shouldn't take advantage.

So, do these recordings have their dynamics compressed
or not?

Probably no more so than the masters.

So you have no actual practical knowlege?

Of the masters? Of course not.

No silly, of the recordings. If the dynamics are objectionably compressed
then you would be able to hear it if you had any real-world experience
with the recordings, right?

Certainly not the
modern crunchy loudness compression some of us dislike.

There is no guarantee of that.

No, there isn't, but secondary sources lead me to believe
it.

Other sources tell an entirely different story. So now we're down to
dueling secondary sources.


Let's be clear.

Dylan was not talking about *HIS* remastered recordings. And for the
record, they are *not* compressed.

He was talking about the state of the pop recording scene in general. And
he wasn't just talking about compression....he made specific reference to
what todays engineers call "grunge", sometimes deliberate and sometimes just
bad engineering or bad equipment, as opposed to the time-honored tradition
of trying to seperate instrumental lines even in a forceful dynamic.

Arny, you participate in RAP and you *know* that many of the folks there
bemoan this same thing...and they *are* recording professionals for the most
part.

What is your point of arguing here?

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues
of recordings origionally issued on CD in the
early-mid 80s is atrocious because of the dynamic
range compression that also seems to be endemic in
modern releases these days.

The Dylan SACD hybrid box is still available at
yourmusic, sixteen discs for under $100 plus tax.

No doubt listed under "dead formats".

No, "box sets." :-) As players are available and these
SACDs exist, there's no reason someone interested in
the collection shouldn't take advantage.

So, do these recordings have their dynamics
compressed or not?

Probably no more so than the masters.

So you have no actual practical knowlege?

Of the masters? Of course not.

No silly, of the recordings. If the dynamics are
objectionably compressed then you would be able to hear
it if you had any real-world experience with the
recordings, right?
Certainly not the
modern crunchy loudness compression some of us
dislike.

There is no guarantee of that.

No, there isn't, but secondary sources lead me to
believe it.

Other sources tell an entirely different story. So now
we're down to dueling secondary sources.


Let's be clear.

OK, here's the OP's reference, again:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ogy+NewsNews-2


Dylan was not talking about *HIS* remastered recordings.

That's a reach, given the full text of the original article.

And for the record, they are *not* compressed.

How do you know for sure, Harry?

He was talking about the state of the pop recording scene
in general.

Maybe, maybe not.

And he wasn't just talking about
compression....he made specific reference to what todays
engineers call "grunge",

The word "grunge" does not appear in the referenced source. This is yet
another regrettable case of Harry making things up as he goes along.

sometimes deliberate and
sometimes just bad engineering or bad equipment,

Often good engineers using good equipment do this sort of thing, because a
producer or A&R person asks for it.

Hey, some people prefer vinyl, and that's just an obsolete medium with
inherent audible grunge. There's no accounting for taste or lack of it.

as opposed to the time-honored tradition of trying to
seperate instrumental lines even in a forceful dynamic.

Does this sentence even make sense?

Lavolish, anybody?

Arny, you participate in RAP and you *know* that many of
the folks there bemoan this same thing...and they *are*
recording professionals for the most part.

What I know about RAP is that many of your posts get laughed at, Harry.
Leading reason is that you don't know what you are talking about. You don't
even know the current words of art.

What is your point of arguing here?

Trolling you Harry, so you can wet yourself in public, one more time and
with feeling. ;-)

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues
of recordings origionally issued on CD in the
early-mid 80s is atrocious because of the dynamic
range compression that also seems to be endemic in
modern releases these days.

The Dylan SACD hybrid box is still available at
yourmusic, sixteen discs for under $100 plus tax.

No doubt listed under "dead formats".

No, "box sets." :-) As players are available and these
SACDs exist, there's no reason someone interested in
the collection shouldn't take advantage.

So, do these recordings have their dynamics
compressed or not?

Probably no more so than the masters.

So you have no actual practical knowlege?

Of the masters? Of course not.

No silly, of the recordings. If the dynamics are
objectionably compressed then you would be able to hear
it if you had any real-world experience with the
recordings, right?
Certainly not the
modern crunchy loudness compression some of us
dislike.

There is no guarantee of that.

No, there isn't, but secondary sources lead me to
believe it.

Other sources tell an entirely different story. So now
we're down to dueling secondary sources.


Let's be clear.

OK, here's the OP's reference, again:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ogy+NewsNews-2


Dylan was not talking about *HIS* remastered recordings.

That's a reach, given the full text of the original article.

And for the record, they are *not* compressed.

How do you know for sure, Harry?

He was talking about the state of the pop recording scene
in general.

Maybe, maybe not.

And he wasn't just talking about
compression....he made specific reference to what todays
engineers call "grunge",

The word "grunge" does not appear in the referenced source. This is yet
another regrettable case of Harry making things up as he goes along.

sometimes deliberate and
sometimes just bad engineering or bad equipment,

Often good engineers using good equipment do this sort of thing, because a
producer or A&R person asks for it.

Hey, some people prefer vinyl, and that's just an obsolete medium with
inherent audible grunge. There's no accounting for taste or lack of it.

as opposed to the time-honored tradition of trying to
seperate instrumental lines even in a forceful dynamic.

Does this sentence even make sense?

Lavolish, anybody?

Arny, you participate in RAP and you *know* that many of
the folks there bemoan this same thing...and they *are*
recording professionals for the most part.

What I know about RAP is that many of your posts get laughed at, Harry.
Leading reason is that you don't know what you are talking about. You don't
even know the current words of art.

What is your point of arguing here?

Trolling you Harry, so you can wet yourself in public, one more time and
with feeling. ;-)

Wow, Little Arny Sunshine is back. Do you note that no one spoke ill
of you while you were not here?

[George M. Middius]

Harry Lavo said to the Krooborg:

What is your point of arguing here?

I think you need to change that question. How about: "Why does your entire
life revolve around arguing with strangers on Usenet?"





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[GregS]

In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues
of recordings origionally issued on CD in the
early-mid 80s is atrocious because of the dynamic
range compression that also seems to be endemic in
modern releases these days.

The Dylan SACD hybrid box is still available at
yourmusic, sixteen discs for under $100 plus tax.

No doubt listed under "dead formats".

No, "box sets." :-) As players are available and these
SACDs exist, there's no reason someone interested in
the collection shouldn't take advantage.

So, do these recordings have their dynamics
compressed or not?

Probably no more so than the masters.

So you have no actual practical knowlege?

Of the masters? Of course not.

No silly, of the recordings. If the dynamics are
objectionably compressed then you would be able to hear
it if you had any real-world experience with the
recordings, right?
Certainly not the
modern crunchy loudness compression some of us
dislike.

There is no guarantee of that.

No, there isn't, but secondary sources lead me to
believe it.

Other sources tell an entirely different story. So now
we're down to dueling secondary sources.


Let's be clear.

OK, here's the OP's reference, again:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...s&storyID=2006
-08-22T183959Z_01_N22395766_RTRUKOC_0_US-LEISURE-DYLAN.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-L3-
Technology+NewsNews-2


Dylan was not talking about *HIS* remastered recordings.


"Well, why not? It ain't worth nothing anyway."

Thats what Dylan said about modern recordings.

A DJ in town said his concert last weekend was terrable. He could not understand a word
out of Dylans mouth.

greg

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

Wow, Little Arny Sunshine is back. Do you note that no one spoke ill
of you while you were not here?

I thought of him with every flush, however.





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com

Wow, Little Arny Sunshine is back.

Jenn has obviously had her smiley face on all morning, trying despirately to
come up with this twist of the knife.

Do you note that no
one spoke ill of you while you were not here?

As usual Jenn, you're poorly informed:

Google finds mention of "Arnii" on 8/14, 8/15, and 8/18.

Google finds mention of "Krooger" on 8/13, 8/14, 8/16, 8/18, 8/19, and 8/20.

Now of course, no such person as "Arnii Krooger" actually exists, so this is
just more evidence of RAO's mass hysteria over a non-existent person.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

Jenn said:

Wow, Little Arny Sunshine is back. Do you note that no
one spoke ill of you while you were not here?

I thought of him with every flush, however.

George, how many times have they warned you about trying to flush your
soiled Depends?

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

Harry Lavo said to the Krooborg:

What is your point of arguing here?

I think you need to change that question. How about: "Why
does your entire life revolve around arguing with
strangers on Usenet?"

There appears to be no trace of a "George Middius" in the real world. We
know that George's only existence is on Usenet. QED.

[George M. Middius]

IKYABWAIBorg snarls in pain.

I thought of him with every flush, however.

George, how many times have they warned you about trying to flush your
soiled Depends?

The Resistance has renewed Marc's contract on you. Watch out, Turdy!





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com

Wow, Little Arny Sunshine is back.

Jenn has obviously had her smiley face on all morning, trying despirately to
come up with this twist of the knife.

"Twist of the knife"? Hardly. Just an observation that you return in
the same old form.


Do you note that no
one spoke ill of you while you were not here?

As usual Jenn, you're poorly informed:

Google finds mention of "Arnii" on 8/14, 8/15, and 8/18.

Of THIS year? I Googled "Arnii Aug 14" and "Arnii 8/14" and found
nothing in this group, so I didn't follow up with the rest.


Google finds mention of "Krooger" on 8/13, 8/14, 8/16, 8/18, 8/19, and 8/20.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com

Wow, Little Arny Sunshine is back.

Jenn has obviously had her smiley face on all morning,
trying despirately to come up with this twist of the
knife.

"Twist of the knife"? Hardly. Just an observation that
you return in the same old form.


Do you note that no
one spoke ill of you while you were not here?

As usual Jenn, you're poorly informed:

Google finds mention of "Arnii" on 8/14, 8/15, and 8/18.

Of THIS year?

Absolutely.

I Googled "Arnii Aug 14" and "Arnii 8/14"
and found nothing in this group, so I didn't follow up

Try advanced searching with date ranges.
with the rest.

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com

Wow, Little Arny Sunshine is back.

Jenn has obviously had her smiley face on all morning,
trying despirately to come up with this twist of the
knife.

"Twist of the knife"? Hardly. Just an observation that
you return in the same old form.


Do you note that no
one spoke ill of you while you were not here?

As usual Jenn, you're poorly informed:

Google finds mention of "Arnii" on 8/14, 8/15, and 8/18.

Of THIS year?

Absolutely.

I Googled "Arnii Aug 14" and "Arnii 8/14"
and found nothing in this group, so I didn't follow up

Try advanced searching with date ranges.
with the rest.

THe 15th, perhaps that is "speaking ill" of you. The 14th = a quote
from an earlier post. The 18th = not speaking ill of you.

[Robert Morein]

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com

Arny, you're going OT. Bob Dylan's testimony is a powerful point in favor
of vinyl, and you have not refuted this in a convincing manner.

I'm afraid I'm finally going to have to get a record player.

[Robert Morein]

Sorry, Arny, I meant to post this to the group:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arny Krueger"
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:00 AM
Subject: Bob Dylan on CD quality


"TT" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news "Robert Morein" wrote in message


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Bob Dylan says the quality of
modern recordings is "atrocious," and even the songs
on his new album sounded much better in the studio
than on disc.


http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ogy+NewsNews-2
Arny, you got a problem wid dat?

No problem, I probably would agree with him, if we both
sat down and auditioned the same recordings.

I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues of
recordings origionally issued on CD in the early-mid
80s is atrocious because of the dynamic range
compression that also seems to be endemic in modern
releases these days.

But with his stature and fortune, doesn't Dylan control
the mix?

We're not talking mixing, we're talking mastering.

This is strong evidence that vinyl is superior to
digital.

Total nonsense, because we're comparing CDs mastered in
the 80s with CD mastered in Y2K+.

Arney you should be an Olympic Gymnast. That was an
excellent backflip with double twist ;-)

Far less so than the claim that Dylan's comments were "strong evidence
that vinyl is superior to
digital." Now that's a reach if not a blatant troll.


Correct me *IF*
I am wrong here but don't we have 1 master tape that is
then mixed for CD and the same master tape that is then
mixed (RIAA EQed) for vinyl?

As a rule, remixes are tremendously rare. I suspect that the word you are
looking for is "mastered".

As a rule there is one master tape that resulted from mixing-down of a
collection of individual tracks. There is at least one track for each
subgroup, vocalist and/or instrument. A few instruments such as drums that
have various distinct components may be individually tracked (parallel
tracks). Some subgroups, instruments or voices may be added in the form of
segments that are shorter than the entire piece (serial tracks).

Once a master tape is reviewed and finalized, it may be remastered any
number of times for various purposes and formats. There are good reasons
to remaster music for FM and TV, for example. Back in the days when people
still took the LP and cassette tape formats seriously, unique masters were
made for them. The recipie or making a LP master is pretty well known -
throw away the deep bass, make the remaining bass mono, and squish the
dynamics and power response at the very highest frequencies, if the master
tape was wideband and/or highly dynamic.

There may also be addtional layers of masters - IOW a LP grand master was
made to exploit the general properties of the LP format, and then
individual cutting masters may have been made from the LP grand master,
that exploited the properties of individual cutting lathes. It depended on
how many LPs were expected to be produced, and at how many different
plants. It is well known that a LP lacquer should be plated within 24
hours of cutting, and one way to do that would be to cut it at the
pressing plant. Various pressing plants may have had cutting lathes that
differed.

While its full of self-congratulatory hype and golden ear dogma, some
might find this article educational:
http://www.stereophile.com/musicreco...72/index1.html

The article shows convincingly that laquer is an organic material, as full
of change and life as music itself. Naturally, such an emotional material
will be more sensitive to the auras of people around it; it is inherently
changeable, and alive, compared to the dead abstractness of binary storage.
I don't understand why you cite such a reference, considering that it is as
powerfully in contradiction to your views as Dylan's wise old head.

I really am going to have to buy a table!

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues
of recordings origionally issued on CD in the
early-mid 80s is atrocious because of the dynamic
range compression that also seems to be endemic in
modern releases these days.

The Dylan SACD hybrid box is still available at
yourmusic, sixteen discs for under $100 plus tax.

No doubt listed under "dead formats".

No, "box sets." :-) As players are available and these
SACDs exist, there's no reason someone interested in
the collection shouldn't take advantage.

So, do these recordings have their dynamics
compressed or not?

Probably no more so than the masters.

So you have no actual practical knowlege?

Of the masters? Of course not.

No silly, of the recordings. If the dynamics are
objectionably compressed then you would be able to hear
it if you had any real-world experience with the
recordings, right?
Certainly not the
modern crunchy loudness compression some of us
dislike.

There is no guarantee of that.

No, there isn't, but secondary sources lead me to
believe it.

Other sources tell an entirely different story. So now
we're down to dueling secondary sources.


Let's be clear.

OK, here's the OP's reference, again:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ogy+NewsNews-2


Thank you. That's a start.



Dylan was not talking about *HIS* remastered recordings.

That's a reach, given the full text of the original article.

His "remastered" recordings were done on Hybrid SACD with no compression
other than what was on the master tapes. He may have been referring to his
recordings of the last two decades, as well as other peoples' recordings
during this time frame. But his recordings during this time frame are not
"remastered".



And for the record, they are *not* compressed.

How do you know for sure, Harry?

I listen, Arny. It ain't too hard to pick out an overly-compressed record.
Neither he nor I is talking about the normal track compression that might,
for example, be used to pull a vocalist forward in the mix, or smooth out a
slight variation in volume from head movement.


He was talking about the state of the pop recording scene
in general.

Maybe, maybe not.

What about " don't know anybody who's made a record that sounds decent in
the past 20 years, really" do you not understand. And Dylan doesn't concern
himself with classical or jazz. That leaves pop-rock, comprende?



And he wasn't just talking about
compression....he made specific reference to what todays
engineers call "grunge",

The word "grunge" does not appear in the referenced source. This is yet
another regrettable case of Harry making things up as he goes along.


Can you read, Arny? Did I say he used the word "grunge"? Or did I refer to
"what todays
engineers call "grunge". You do understand the difference between "what
Dylan says" and "what todays engineers call "grunge", don't you Arny?


sometimes deliberate and
sometimes just bad engineering or bad equipment,

Often good engineers using good equipment do this sort of thing, because a
producer or A&R person asks for it.

I believe my use of the words "deliberate" and "or" cover that rather
nicely. Or don't you remember English 101?


Hey, some people prefer vinyl, and that's just an obsolete medium with
inherent audible grunge. There's no accounting for taste or lack of it.


Since you seem to thrive on misstatement, please note that nowhere in the
article does Dylan refer to "vinyl". He uses the generic term "records",
which frankly is the term most musicians and many engineers use to refer to
the recordings, even today. And especially those old enough to record when
records really were "records".


as opposed to the time-honored tradition of trying to
seperate instrumental lines even in a forceful dynamic.

Does this sentence even make sense?


I see you haven't learned much from your time on RAP, have you Arny? Too
busy talking, perhaps?


Lavolish, anybody?


Nah, I have no ambitions to match your command of whole new languages, Arny.


Arny, you participate in RAP and you *know* that many of
the folks there bemoan this same thing...and they *are*
recording professionals for the most part.

What I know about RAP is that many of your posts get laughed at, Harry.
Leading reason is that you don't know what you are talking about. You
don't even know the current words of art.

Arny, I post on RAP perhaps once for every 100 times you do. And of the
dozen or so times I have done so over the years, I have never had any
negative or mocking response. So perhaps you've formed a club, and dozens
of engineers are writing to you privately to laugh at me? I don't suppose
this could be wishful thinking or conjecture on your part, could it Arny?

What is your point of arguing here?

Trolling you Harry, so you can wet yourself in public, one more time and
with feeling. ;-)

Childish, naughty, potty-talk noted. One more time, and with feeling, Arny.
:-(

[MINe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I think that the quality of many modern CD reissues
of recordings origionally issued on CD in the
early-mid 80s is atrocious because of the dynamic
range compression that also seems to be endemic in
modern releases these days.

The Dylan SACD hybrid box is still available at
yourmusic, sixteen discs for under $100 plus tax.

No doubt listed under "dead formats".

No, "box sets." :-) As players are available and these
SACDs exist, there's no reason someone interested in the
collection shouldn't take advantage.

So, do these recordings have their dynamics compressed
or not?

Probably no more so than the masters.

So you have no actual practical knowlege?

Of the masters? Of course not.

No silly, of the recordings. If the dynamics are objectionably compressed
then you would be able to hear it if you had any real-world experience with
the recordings, right?

Lp only, plus a lifetime of "secondhand smoke" from radio, tv, audio
stores, etc.

I do have the recent two disc Essential collection, but I assume that's
a different mastering than the hybrids.

Certainly not the
modern crunchy loudness compression some of us dislike.

There is no guarantee of that.

No, there isn't, but secondary sources lead me to believe
it.

Other sources tell an entirely different story. So now we're down to dueling
secondary sources.

I'm interested in hearing if the SACD hybrids have crunchy-style
compression. There are several titles (other than the box set) at
yourmusic. Please recommend one that has particularly unpleasant
mastering. $5.99 isn't too big a bite.

If you have a good citation of a discussion of Dylan masterings, please
share.

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article ,
(GregS) wrote:

A DJ in town said his concert last weekend was terrable. He could not
understand a word out of Dylans mouth.

That's hardly a surprise, what with the mumbling and the typical concert
sound.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com

Arny, you're going OT. Bob Dylan's testimony is a
powerful point in favor of vinyl, and you have not
refuted this in a convincing manner.

Troll, troll, troll. In fact the cited article doesn't mention vinyl or the
LP.

In fact the article refers to the same standard that most of the obs around
here use - the origional studio master which by definition differs greatly
from a LP that is made from it.

I'm afraid I'm finally going to have to get a record
player.

Troll on, dude! You mean you don't already have one? Even I have a LP
playback system!

[soundhaspriority]

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:33:15 -0400, "soundhaspriority"
wrote:

these days.
But with his stature and fortune, doesn't Dylan control the mix? This is
strong evidence that vinyl is superior to digital.


The record companies call the tune when it comes to something like
that. I'm not sure they even bother consulting with the artist
beforehand.

You can do the same thing with vinyl to a great extent. If the record
companies wants it loud and "punchy," they'll toss on a
compressor-limiter and strangle the recording.

But since vinyl is bought by connosieurs, there isn't the pressure to do so.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
I think that the quality of many modern CD
reissues of recordings origionally issued on CD
in the early-mid 80s is atrocious because of the
dynamic range compression that also seems to be
endemic in modern releases these days.

The Dylan SACD hybrid box is still available at
yourmusic, sixteen discs for under $100 plus tax.

No doubt listed under "dead formats".

No, "box sets." :-) As players are available and
these SACDs exist, there's no reason someone
interested in the collection shouldn't take
advantage.
So, do these recordings have their dynamics
compressed or not?

Probably no more so than the masters.

So you have no actual practical knowlege?

Of the masters? Of course not.

No silly, of the recordings. If the dynamics are
objectionably compressed then you would be able to hear
it if you had any real-world experience with the
recordings, right?
Certainly not the
modern crunchy loudness compression some of us
dislike.

There is no guarantee of that.

No, there isn't, but secondary sources lead me to
believe it.

Other sources tell an entirely different story. So now
we're down to dueling secondary sources.


Let's be clear.

OK, here's the OP's reference, again:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ogy+NewsNews-2


Thank you. That's a start.

It's just pointing out an obvious thing that you blew off the first time
through, Harry.

Dylan was not talking about *HIS* remastered recordings.

That's a reach, given the full text of the original
article.

His "remastered" recordings were done on Hybrid SACD with
no compression other than what was on the master tapes.

Reliable evidence is where?

He may have been referring to his recordings of the last
two decades, as well as other peoples' recordings during
this time frame. But his recordings during this time
frame are not "remastered".

Reliable evidence is where?


And for the record, they are *not* compressed.

How do you know for sure, Harry?

I listen, Arny.

Reliable evidence is where?

It ain't too hard to pick out an
overly-compressed record.

That's not the same as your earlier unsubstantiated claim of the SACD
recordings being uncompressed. Thanks for demonstrating your dissembelation
module, Harry.

Neither he nor I is talking
about the normal track compression that might, for
example, be used to pull a vocalist forward in the mix,
or smooth out a slight variation in volume from head
movement.

Dissemble on, dude.

He was talking about the state of the pop recording
scene in general.

Maybe, maybe not.

What about " don't know anybody who's made a record that
sounds decent in the past 20 years, really" do you not
understand.

Sounds like hyperbole to me.

And Dylan doesn't concern himself with
classical or jazz.

I see no such qualifications. AFAIK Dylan, like most people, listens to more
than one genre of music.

That leaves pop-rock, comprende?

Posture on, Harry. Your *fact* creation module is working overtime, it
seems.

And he wasn't just talking about
compression....he made specific reference to what todays
engineers call "grunge",

The word "grunge" does not appear in the referenced
source. This is yet another regrettable case of Harry
making things up as he goes along.

Can you read, Arny? Did I say he used the word "grunge"?

So what do quotation marks mean in your part of outer space, Harry?

Or did I refer to "what todays
engineers call "grunge".

I don't see many modern engineers using the word grunge very often. Only 6
mentions on RAP so far this year, and half of them were to grunge as a
musical genre, not as a EFX.

You do understand the
difference between "what Dylan says" and "what todays
engineers call "grunge", don't you Arny?

It appears that there is no single generally-agreed upon meaning of the word
grunge, Harry. Bad choice of words, again.

sometimes deliberate and
sometimes just bad engineering or bad equipment,

Often good engineers using good equipment do this sort
of thing, because a producer or A&R person asks for it.

I believe my use of the words "deliberate" and "or" cover
that rather nicely. Or don't you remember English 101?

Pardon me for temporily losing your mish-mash of personal inventions and
obscure wanderings, Harry.


Hey, some people prefer vinyl, and that's just an
obsolete medium with inherent audible grunge. There's no
accounting for taste or lack of it.

Since you seem to thrive on misstatement, please note
that nowhere in the article does Dylan refer to "vinyl". He uses the
generic term "records", which frankly is the
term most musicians and many engineers use to refer to
the recordings, even today. And especially those old
enough to record when records really were "records".

So what are you saying Harry - in your world "record stores" only sell LPs?

LOL!

as opposed to the time-honored tradition of trying to
seperate instrumental lines even in a forceful dynamic.

Does this sentence even make sense?

I see you haven't learned much from your time on RAP,
have you Arny? Too busy talking, perhaps?

Psoture on, dude.

Lavolish, anybody?

Nah, I have no ambitions to match your command of whole
new languages, Arny.

Whatever winds your clock, Harry. As usual, its wound a bit tightly tonight.

Arny, you participate in RAP and you *know* that many of
the folks there bemoan this same thing...and they *are*
recording professionals for the most part.

What I know about RAP is that many of your posts get
laughed at, Harry. Leading reason is that you don't know
what you are talking about. You don't even know the
current words of art.

Arny, I post on RAP perhaps once for every 100 times you
do.

The stated reason being one reason why, it seems.

And of the dozen or so times I have done so over the
years, I have never had any negative or mocking response.

It's easy to talk behind your back to your face, Harry.

So perhaps you've formed a club, and dozens of engineers
are writing to you privately to laugh at me? I don't
suppose this could be wishful thinking or conjecture on
your part, could it Arny?

What is your point of arguing here?

Trolling you Harry, so you can wet yourself in public,
one more time and with feeling. ;-)

Childish, naughty, potty-talk noted. One more time, and
with feeling, Arny. :-(

Lame IKWYABWAI noted.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
I think that the quality of many modern CD
reissues of recordings origionally issued on CD
in the early-mid 80s is atrocious because of the
dynamic range compression that also seems to be
endemic in modern releases these days.

The Dylan SACD hybrid box is still available at
yourmusic, sixteen discs for under $100 plus tax.

No doubt listed under "dead formats".

No, "box sets." :-) As players are available and
these SACDs exist, there's no reason someone
interested in the collection shouldn't take
advantage.
So, do these recordings have their dynamics
compressed or not?

Probably no more so than the masters.

So you have no actual practical knowlege?

Of the masters? Of course not.

No silly, of the recordings. If the dynamics are
objectionably compressed then you would be able to hear
it if you had any real-world experience with the
recordings, right?
Certainly not the
modern crunchy loudness compression some of us
dislike.

There is no guarantee of that.

No, there isn't, but secondary sources lead me to
believe it.

Other sources tell an entirely different story. So now
we're down to dueling secondary sources.


Let's be clear.

OK, here's the OP's reference, again:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ogy+NewsNews-2


Thank you. That's a start.

It's just pointing out an obvious thing that you blew off the first time
through, Harry.

Dylan was not talking about *HIS* remastered recordings.

That's a reach, given the full text of the original
article.

His "remastered" recordings were done on Hybrid SACD with
no compression other than what was on the master tapes.

Reliable evidence is where?

He may have been referring to his recordings of the last
two decades, as well as other peoples' recordings during
this time frame. But his recordings during this time
frame are not "remastered".

Reliable evidence is where?


And for the record, they are *not* compressed.

How do you know for sure, Harry?

I listen, Arny.

Reliable evidence is where?

It ain't too hard to pick out an
overly-compressed record.

That's not the same as your earlier unsubstantiated claim of the SACD
recordings being uncompressed. Thanks for demonstrating your
dissembelation module, Harry.

Neither he nor I is talking
about the normal track compression that might, for
example, be used to pull a vocalist forward in the mix,
or smooth out a slight variation in volume from head
movement.

Dissemble on, dude.

He was talking about the state of the pop recording
scene in general.

Maybe, maybe not.

What about " don't know anybody who's made a record that
sounds decent in the past 20 years, really" do you not
understand.

Sounds like hyperbole to me.

And Dylan doesn't concern himself with
classical or jazz.

I see no such qualifications. AFAIK Dylan, like most people, listens to
more than one genre of music.

That leaves pop-rock, comprende?

Posture on, Harry. Your *fact* creation module is working overtime, it
seems.

And he wasn't just talking about
compression....he made specific reference to what todays
engineers call "grunge",

The word "grunge" does not appear in the referenced
source. This is yet another regrettable case of Harry
making things up as he goes along.

Can you read, Arny? Did I say he used the word "grunge"?

So what do quotation marks mean in your part of outer space, Harry?

Or did I refer to "what todays
engineers call "grunge".

I don't see many modern engineers using the word grunge very often. Only 6
mentions on RAP so far this year, and half of them were to grunge as a
musical genre, not as a EFX.

You do understand the
difference between "what Dylan says" and "what todays
engineers call "grunge", don't you Arny?

It appears that there is no single generally-agreed upon meaning of the
word grunge, Harry. Bad choice of words, again.

sometimes deliberate and
sometimes just bad engineering or bad equipment,

Often good engineers using good equipment do this sort
of thing, because a producer or A&R person asks for it.

I believe my use of the words "deliberate" and "or" cover
that rather nicely. Or don't you remember English 101?

Pardon me for temporily losing your mish-mash of personal inventions and
obscure wanderings, Harry.


Hey, some people prefer vinyl, and that's just an
obsolete medium with inherent audible grunge. There's no
accounting for taste or lack of it.

Since you seem to thrive on misstatement, please note
that nowhere in the article does Dylan refer to "vinyl". He uses the
generic term "records", which frankly is the
term most musicians and many engineers use to refer to
the recordings, even today. And especially those old
enough to record when records really were "records".

So what are you saying Harry - in your world "record stores" only sell
LPs?

LOL!

as opposed to the time-honored tradition of trying to
seperate instrumental lines even in a forceful dynamic.

Does this sentence even make sense?

I see you haven't learned much from your time on RAP,
have you Arny? Too busy talking, perhaps?

Psoture on, dude.

Lavolish, anybody?

Nah, I have no ambitions to match your command of whole
new languages, Arny.

Whatever winds your clock, Harry. As usual, its wound a bit tightly
tonight.

Arny, you participate in RAP and you *know* that many of
the folks there bemoan this same thing...and they *are*
recording professionals for the most part.

What I know about RAP is that many of your posts get
laughed at, Harry. Leading reason is that you don't know
what you are talking about. You don't even know the
current words of art.

Arny, I post on RAP perhaps once for every 100 times you
do.

The stated reason being one reason why, it seems.

And of the dozen or so times I have done so over the
years, I have never had any negative or mocking response.

It's easy to talk behind your back to your face, Harry.

So perhaps you've formed a club, and dozens of engineers
are writing to you privately to laugh at me? I don't
suppose this could be wishful thinking or conjecture on
your part, could it Arny?

What is your point of arguing here?

Trolling you Harry, so you can wet yourself in public,
one more time and with feeling. ;-)

Childish, naughty, potty-talk noted. One more time, and
with feeling, Arny. :-(

Lame IKWYABWAI noted.


An entire post with no substance whatsoever. Congratulations, Arny.

Oh, sorry. There is one piece of substance after all. You cite "RAP" as
your definitive tool for searching for engineers who used the word grunge.
I guess that means you don't get or read ProAudio, EQ, Mix, or Recorder
magazines on a regular basis. My interest in the field is not so narrow,
Arny.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com

Wow, Little Arny Sunshine is back.

Jenn has obviously had her smiley face on all morning, trying despirately
to come up with this twist of the knife.

Do you note that no
one spoke ill of you while you were not here?

As usual Jenn, you're poorly informed:

Google finds mention of "Arnii" on 8/14, 8/15, and 8/18.

Google finds mention of "Krooger" on 8/13, 8/14, 8/16, 8/18, 8/19, and
8/20.

Now of course, no such person as "Arnii Krooger" actually exists, so this
is just more evidence of RAO's mass hysteria over a non-existent person.


what did they say about you?
Quotes, please!!!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDem

[Clyde Slick]

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com

Wow, Little Arny Sunshine is back.

Jenn has obviously had her smiley face on all morning,
trying despirately to come up with this twist of the
knife.

"Twist of the knife"? Hardly. Just an observation that
you return in the same old form.


Do you note that no
one spoke ill of you while you were not here?

As usual Jenn, you're poorly informed:

Google finds mention of "Arnii" on 8/14, 8/15, and 8/18.

Of THIS year?

Absolutely.

I Googled "Arnii Aug 14" and "Arnii 8/14"
and found nothing in this group, so I didn't follow up

Try advanced searching with date ranges.
with the rest.

THe 15th, perhaps that is "speaking ill" of you. The 14th = a quote
from an earlier post. The 18th = not speaking ill of you.


GOOGLE lies!!!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDem

[Clyde Slick]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..


Arny, I post on RAP perhaps once for every 100 times you do. And of the
dozen or so times I have done so over the years, I have never had any
negative or mocking response. So perhaps you've formed a club, and
dozens of engineers are writing to you privately to laugh at me? I don't
suppose this could be wishful thinking or conjecture on your part, could
it Arny?


harry, you are famous.
You are mentioned in the SWMWTMS charter!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDem

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

An entire post with no substance whatsoever. Congratulations, Arny.

You reap what you sew, Harry.

Oh, sorry. There is one piece of substance after all. You cite "RAP" as
your definitive tool for searching for
engineers who used the word grunge. I guess that means
you don't get or read ProAudio, EQ, Mix, or Recorder
magazines on a regular basis. My interest in the field
is not so narrow, Arny.

I get it Harry, you have special subscriptions to Mix, ProAudio, etc. that
include online searching. Not!

Anybody with a brain would know that is the reason for my choice. Sorry to
leave you out, Harry.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:27:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


The word "grunge" does not appear in the referenced source. This is yet
another regrettable case of Harry making things up as he goes along.

Ever heard the word "infer", Arnie. Or "interpolate"? Life is not a
circuit diagram, you know.

sometimes deliberate and
sometimes just bad engineering or bad equipment,

Often good engineers using good equipment do this sort of thing, because a
producer or A&R person asks for it.

Hey, some people prefer vinyl, and that's just an obsolete medium with
inherent audible grunge. There's no accounting for taste or lack of it.

as opposed to the time-honored tradition of trying to
seperate instrumental lines even in a forceful dynamic.

Does this sentence even make sense?

Absolutely, but not to you. Harry means the ability to recognise and
separate instrumental lines even in a sustained crescendo.

Lavolish, anybody?

I'll have two spoonfuls, thanks.

Arny, you participate in RAP and you *know* that many of
the folks there bemoan this same thing...and they *are*
recording professionals for the most part.

What I know about RAP is that many of your posts get laughed at, Harry.

And this is your thanks for Harry respectfully asking after your
opinion. Well, I won't be asking after your opinion any time soon.

Leading reason is that you don't know what you are talking about. You don't
even know the current words of art.

What is your point of arguing here?

Trolling you Harry, so you can wet yourself in public, one more time and
with feeling. ;-)

Lovely, Arnie. You've outdone yourself.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message


Lovely, Arnie. You've outdone yourself.

I take it that you're a glutton for punishment, Paul.