"Dave Martin" wrote in message ...
"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
...

"Mike Janas" wrote in message ...

In my experience many piano tuners around here have been forced to
change their "stretching" to accomodate the ****ty little $80 guitar
tuners that the other musicians bring...

With all due respect, you were in Nashville and people didn't tune to
the piano?

As a general rule, David, the players use their own tuners (unless there's a
problem that becomes audible the first time we run the track). I can think
of maybe twice in the last 14 years where I changed my tuning to accommodate
the piano (which was out of tune with itself) because of inequities between
the bass and the low end of the piano. I usually use a ****ty rack mounted
$200 tuner, though. rather than a ****ty $80 tuner...

Shoulda' told that piano player to lighten up on the left hand. ;-)

While I don't Autotune fiddles and such here, I know that it's done by some
producers in town; I can see where it would be a problem.

I'm just surprised (somewhat) that the autotune thing has been taken *so* far
over the edge. You know pretty well, that from where I sit with my Indy western
swingers and jazz guys, that the piano is everything and everyone quite
naturally tunes to the piano - - with the possible exception of the acoustic
guitar guys on the first pass.

having the piano 98% right and ready is probably one reason I'm for covering
the cost of regular piano tunings (yet I can certainly see from this thread
that I am a long way from being overly retentive about things!).

I've watched fiddle parts that seemed perfectly natural with fine intonation
be autotuned into what sounded to me like a large bee hive. Visually (yuk), I
could see that things didn't *exactly* jive with the way the software perceived
things to be, but the untouched initial chords sounded very rich and in tune to
my ears, while the autotuned results when combined again were almost
painful and sat pretty abrasively in the mix (MHO). Sure... Antares would
say they were "in tune", but it just didn't *sound* right.


.... And to you, Bob or Mike,

Is anyone even _trying_ to draw a line in the sand, or is this auto-tune thing
merely serving as a 'technical' time-sucker to properly consume budgets?

I can see fixing a bad note here or there that wasn't caught before Elvis had
left the building, but is auto-tune really becoming a matter of slathering it
on in layer after layer on part after part and then fighting the mathematics
as part of the mix?

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
news:l%4Ma.11356


... And to you, Bob or Mike,

Is anyone even _trying_ to draw a line in the sand, or is this auto-tune
thing
merely serving as a 'technical' time-sucker to properly consume budgets?

I can see fixing a bad note here or there that wasn't caught before Elvis
had
left the building, but is auto-tune really becoming a matter of slathering
it
on in layer after layer on part after part and then fighting the
mathematics
as part of the mix?

Yes, there are folks who have drawn that line. Unfortunately, they aren't
the guys producing major label records... A couple of friends have put a NO
Pro Tools sticker on their records, to make the point even stronger. But
again, not major label product.


--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO! thanks in advance.

ScotFraser wrote:
I've been looking for something like that. Where do I find them? I found
some cloth that protects silver from tarnishing and stuffed my sax
cases with it and now the things never tarnish. I'd love to do that with
my piano and soon because I am packing to go back to Florida now.


My mom had one on her piano in Florida. That's a brutal environment for a
piano. She uses it still on the central coast of California. I'll ask her where
she got hers.


Scott Fraser


--
Danny Taddei
e-mail me at (remove no-worms-in-a-)
There's a horizon on every side. Let your soul inside be the guide and
lead the way.
http://members.cox.net/sandycove/index.html

In article writes:

... And to you, Bob or Mike,

Is anyone even _trying_ to draw a line in the sand, or is this auto-tune thing
merely serving as a 'technical' time-sucker to properly consume budgets?

Anything to give the client what he thinks he needs, and to make an
extra buck. G

I can see fixing a bad note here or there that wasn't caught before Elvis had
left the building, but is auto-tune really becoming a matter of slathering it
on in layer after layer on part after part and then fighting the mathematics
as part of the mix?

I'm not aware that it's become that bad and gets used on all the
instruments, but I doubt that there's a singer recording on a
"seriously for sale" label today that hasn't had his vocal track fixed
with Autotune.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Is anyone even _trying_ to draw a line in the sand, or is this auto-tune
thing
merely serving as a 'technical' time-sucker to properly consume budgets?


I only AutoTune as a last resort to save an otherwise fine track. I find it can
make things worse as often as it makes them better. If one note in a vocal
performance is out consistently throughout its duration (i.e. doesn't gliss
into tune halfway through the note) I prefer to manually shift its pitch &
leave AutoTune off.

Scott Fraser

The piano tech that does the concert instruments at the University where
I do some recording refers to most Japanese and all Korean instruments
as "PSO" (Piano-shaped objects.) :-)


Still true in the case of any Korean pianos I've heard, but it's a snobby lack
of familiarity with what Yamaha has become capable of in recent years to keep
repeating this old insult.


Scott Fraser

So we can refer to Ovations as GSOs now?

No. A GSO doesn't have a round back.


Scott Fraser

ScotFraser wrote:
Analog print through starts immediately, like on the very first pass. It gets
worse over time due to environmental effects, but it's always there. It was
just masked by the ridiculous racket of LP surface noise in the past. More
conservative print levels & complementary noise reduction will minimize it.

Yes, Scot, having recorded with analog tape for 50 years, I know about
analog print-through. (And I've also heard 25-y.o. analog tapes with no
print-through.) What I was describing was something in a different
world, hence my use of the word "loud" and specification that it was
"the next day" and that there was "no exposure to magnetic fields" ---
to separate this incident from the more usual phenomena.

And if you have "ridiculous racket of Lp surface noise," you have
badly-made or badly-played Lp's. Listen to the Lp of your choice, and
note how, at the end of the side, when the pot goes down on the master
tape, the background noise drops, showing that the residual of the Lp is
lower than that of the tape. At least it ought to be lower---unless the
tape is strongly noise-reduced, which of course introduces its own sonic
problems.

James Boyk

Hey Scott, try it for bass guitar and see what you think. I'm not a big
fan either but there are times when it really works well on bass

About the only instrument I use it on is upright bass. If a bass guitarist
can't hit good intonation there's no hope, unless you're talking fretless.


Scott Fraser

ScotFraser wrote: If a bass guitarist can't hit good intonation
there's no hope, unless you're talking fretless.

So if you're concerned about good intonation, fretless makes you fretful?

James Boyk

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1057023534k@trad...
In article writes:

... And to you, Bob or Mike,

Is anyone even _trying_ to draw a line in the sand,

Somewhat. It's weird to think that about 6-8 years ago the use of a
DAW to tune-up or manipulate audio tracks was somewhat revolutionary
around here. Nowadays the non-use of a DAW on a record is
revolutionary and rebellious.

or is this auto-tune thing merely serving as a 'technical' time-sucker to properly consume budgets?

It's not necessarily a budget boosting process, although I'm sure the
thought might cross a few minds.

IMHO, the "abuse" of Autotune(and Pro Tools) is a direct descendant of
the "Fix It In The Mix" school of thought. I believe both can result
from either not standing by decisions made during the recording
process, not making the decisions at all, or perpetually postponing
them. Pro Tools allows the indecisive producer, or the control freak,
to completely modify an original performance into something different.
Not only can the performance be tuned (sometimes, with luck, you can
actually tune a distorted power guitar chord!), but it can be
manipulated in time. That is, the operator can decide to shift the
performance to where he thinks it should be - without taking into
account the original intention of the artist or musician.

Another analogy: think of Pro Tools as audio cocaine - but it rots
your ears and judgement instead of your nose. You can keep fixin',
fix a little more, then you gotta go back and fix that again, and
pretty soon your eyes are fire-engine red - it's ten hours later - and
you can't remember how you got there. Or why you went there in the
first place.

Pro Tools (or any DAW) is a valid tool in the studio. But like any
drug, or food, it's best when used in moderation.


Anything to give the client what he thinks he needs, and to make an
extra buck. G


See above.


I can see fixing a bad note here or there that wasn't caught before Elvis had
left the building, but is auto-tune really becoming a matter of slathering it
on in layer after layer on part after part and then fighting the mathematics
as part of the mix?

I'm not aware that it's become that bad and gets used on all the
instruments, but I doubt that there's a singer recording on a
"seriously for sale" label today that hasn't had his vocal track fixed
with Autotune.

Yep.

Another analogy: think of Pro Tools as audio cocaine - but it rots
your ears and judgement instead of your nose. You can keep fixin',
fix a little more, then you gotta go back and fix that again, and
pretty soon your eyes are fire-engine red - it's ten hours later - and
you can't remember how you got there. Or why you went there in the
first place.


I think of Protools as a compositional tool. I've heard that it could take
Beethoven two weeks of torturous writing and rewriting to compose 2 bars of
music.

OTOH, I've heard stories from a friend of mine who would stay up all night with
Joe Really Famous Producer and move the snare drum up a tick, back a tick, up a
tick, back a tic, etc, and at 5 am try to decide how it was feeling. Of
course that's a decision a good drummer makes a hundred or so times a minute in
the course of a day's work.

-R

Dave Martin wrote:

I've tried it on acoustic bass; it didn't impress me.

I've tried it on stand up and it worked better then what the player
could do but on electric when the bass line is straight and punchy
without slurs it really makes everything sound tight. bass is always out
abut 10 cents

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
...

The only time I have ever been asked by a client (who frequents Nashville)
to use autotune, was to save replacing a bass track that had several

clunkers

during the initial tracking sessions that were tolerated because the track
wasn't expected to be a 'keeper'. He had seen it done in Nashville and
concluded that it worked well - and he sort of expected me to have the
software. Re-cutting the track actually helped *me* get a cleaner take
overall. I trust this man's ears, so it must work well on bass.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)





--
Danny Taddei
e-mail me at (remove no-worms-in-a-)
There's a horizon on every side. Let your soul inside be the guide and
lead the way.
http://members.cox.net/sandycove/index.html

To be honest, if I went to a studio and in their equipment list there
was a piano, I?d expect it to be tuned and useable (assuming un-tuned is
un-useable for most music).
If I got there and there happened to be a piano too, I?d not expect it.

Dave Martin wrote:

"Danny Taddei" wrote in message
news:alFMa.61454$1e.18472@fed1read04...


I've tried it on stand up and it worked better then what the player
could do but on electric when the bass line is straight and punchy
without slurs it really makes everything sound tight. bass is always out
abut 10 cents

When you say 'tight', do you mean it a good way or a bad way?

Using auto tune on a percussive, staccato bass line sounds great because
the tuning on a bass is always poorly annotated because of the thickness
of the string. it is not something most people hear but when the auto
locks the note you do hear that. I sort of think of auto tune as type of
bass compressor - not really but it is really surprising how you clean
up the highs when you lock the intonation in on the bass. n no- it
doesn't always sound good, in fact more often then not you can't use it.
I find you have to use it on the entire song or you hear the parts that
are not effected as they stand out and sound awful in comparison. So, if
you have any sliding going on at all it just sucks.




--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com



--
Danny Taddei
e-mail me at (remove no-worms-in-a-)
There's a horizon on every side. Let your soul inside be the guide and
lead the way.
http://members.cox.net/sandycove/index.html

my goodness! don't put oil on strings! at least not w/out checking Very
Carefully w/ top technicians... i would never never do this.

James Boyk

Mike Clayton wrote:

In

The job was a
real ear opener.

Oh GROSS- I just had a vision of forceps in an ear:-)


--
Danny Taddei
e-mail me at (remove no-worms-in-a-)
There's a horizon on every side. Let your soul inside be the guide and
lead the way.
http://members.cox.net/sandycove/index.html

In article yMQMa.119180$MJ5.96378@fed1read03, Danny Taddei
wrote:

Mike Clayton wrote:

In

The job was a
real ear opener.

Oh GROSS- I just had a vision of forceps in an ear:-)



I sometimes need them too Danny!

--
Mike Clayton

In article writes:

my goodness! don't put oil on strings! at least not w/out checking Very
Carefully w/ top technicians... i would never never do this.

Can't oil the piano strings? Gee, what do you all do when they squeak?




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Mike Clayton wrote:
...Beethoven's Pathetique sonata sounds almost orchestral when played on a fortepiano. The job was a
real ear opener.

Thanks for the pointer. I'll look out for it (while bringing out my
latest album recorded on the opposite of a fortepiano: a Boesendorfer
"Imperial"!)

James BOyk

So if you're concerned about good intonation, fretless makes you fretful?

I always fret when I see no frets.


Scott Fraser

ScotFraser wrote:
And if you have "ridiculous racket of Lp surface noise," you have
badly-made or badly-played Lp's.

Or test pressings from the first run through the stampers from the most
respected audiophile pressing plants in the country.

Why are these plants "respected" if they can't turn out a quiet pressing?


Listen to the Lp of your choice, and
note how, at the end of the side, when the pot goes down on the master
tape, the background noise drops, showing that the residual of the Lp is
lower than that of the tape. At least it ought to be lower---unless the
tape is strongly noise-reduced, which of course introduces its own sonic
problems.


My least favorite aspect of recording in the 70s was having to approve LP test
pressings, realizing that as good as it could get was still only a vague
facsimile of the master tape as I had recorded it. How much do I miss LPs?
About as much as I missed pneumonia after it finally went away.

I always noticed that bass on the master & on the vinyl was *more* like
the original in the concert hall than it was on the master tape. This as
a synergistic aspect of the analog-tape/Lp combination that I always
appreciated. (I did have the privilege of working with a superb cutting
engineer with impeccable equipment: Doug Sax at The Mastering Lab, in
Hollywood.) With respect, I wonder if your Lp playback setup perhaps
left something to be desired; a common problem is a preamp with
inadequate overload ability or inability to match the cartridge properly
for really flat response; but there are many other common problems, too.

In article writes:

Why are these plants "respected" if they can't turn out a quiet pressing?

They don't leave the stampers in the press long enough to fully
stabilize at the working temperature since they're only going to press
a few disks. The vinyl doesn't flow as well. It's an economy thing.
They'd have to charge too much for the test pressings if it tied up a
press for long enough to get real quality.

Besides, the purpose of the test pressing is to verify the cutting
process - to make sure that it doesn't skip or the stylus doesn't jump
out of the groove. It doesn't have to sound good. If you want to hear
what kind of equalization, level adjustments, and processing was added
in mastering, you ask for a reference acetate - that's cut on the
lathe just like the master only they usually use lower quality blanks.
Because it's softer than vinyl the high frequency response starts to
go away noticably from the first playing, so you've gotta listen close
the first time.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Mike Rivers wrote:

Why are these plants "respected" if they can't turn out a quiet pressing?

The rest of your response answers this: it's a mistake to respect such work.


They don't leave the stampers in the press long enough to fully
stabilize at the working temperature since they're only going to press
a few disks. The vinyl doesn't flow as well. It's an economy thing.
They'd have to charge too much for the test pressings if it tied up a
press for long enough to get real quality.

I have produced a number of Lp's, and have gotten test pressings from
top plants in America, Japan & Europe. Test pressings, to be useful,
must be made exactly like finished disks; otherwise, they "test"
nothing. And they *are* made this way at good plants--or were when I was
doing this. That's why you press 100 or more disks: so the temp stabilizes.


Besides, the purpose of the test pressing is to verify the cutting
process - to make sure that it doesn't skip or the stylus doesn't jump
out of the groove. It doesn't have to sound good. If you want to hear
what kind of equalization, level adjustments, and processing was added
in mastering, you ask for a reference acetate - that's cut on the
lathe just like the master only they usually use lower quality blanks.
Because it's softer than vinyl the high frequency response starts to
go away noticably from the first playing, so you've gotta listen close
the first time.

According to my understanding & experience, acetate interacts
differently with the stylus; so I believe that you can't fully test
cutting from acetate. I'm not positive about this, but I'm quite sure
that acetate sounds completely different from vinyl; so the only way to
know how the vinyl will sound is to listen to test pressings. Also, one
of the things you're verifying about the cutting is the absence of any
gouge in the middle of one groove wall caused by chip sticking to
cutting stylus instead of being picked up by the vacuum system; this is
especially likely in extended soft passages. (We once had to cut 15
"Moonlight" sonatas to get one good one, partly because of repeated
problems of this sort, and partly because of noisy lacquers.)
Mittelreise can happen at a height of the groove wall so specific that
one profile of stylus shows it and another does not (this once happened
to me in spades); thus, you play test pressings on styli with a variety
of profiles. The test pressing, as I understand it and as I always used
it, is to tell you *precisely* what the final vinyl will sound like. It
can do this because, except for the label, it IS the final vinyl.

James Boyk

In article , James Boyk wrote:

Mike Clayton wrote:
...Beethoven's Pathetique sonata sounds almost orchestral when played
on a fortepiano. The job was a
real ear opener.

Thanks for the pointer. I'll look out for it (while bringing out my
latest album recorded on the opposite of a fortepiano: a Boesendorfer
"Imperial"!)

As they say WAY COOL! Send me a copy James! I'll play the two one after
the other (yours first!). Let me know price, email me off list for postal
address.

FYI the disc is Kemp English at the Fortepiano, and it's distributed by
Ode Record Co. Ltd, Auckland, NZ, on CD Manu 5001.

--
Mike Clayton

In article writes:

According to my understanding & experience, acetate interacts
differently with the stylus; so I believe that you can't fully test
cutting from acetate.

This is true, but you can "test" part of the process. You can listen
for distortion, you can hear reverb levels, you can hear levels and
transistions between songs, and you can get an idea of what changes in
frequency response were made in mastering. But it's true that a
reference acetate is only an approximation of what's going to the
cutter sounded like - just like a pressing only a little different.

A ref is like buying insurance. If the mastering engineer overcuts and
it goes straight to pressing, you pay for recutting. If you catch it
in the ref, they do the job over. The purpose isn't to hear exactly
what the pressing will sound like because you can't, until you get a
pressing.

I'm not positive about this, but I'm quite sure
that acetate sounds completely different from vinyl; so the only way to
know how the vinyl will sound is to listen to test pressings.

No, the way to tell is to listen to final pressings. If you were
working with a shop that ran 100 test pressings on a production press,
that's great. I guess I never had that luxury. I guess I was always
lucky in that the pressings sounded OK. They didn't sound like the
tape did in my studio, but they still sounded good. Mastering of CDs
is like that today too, only the difference between the test CD and
the pressings isn't so different.

The test pressing, as I understand it and as I always used
it, is to tell you *precisely* what the final vinyl will sound like. It
can do this because, except for the label, it IS the final vinyl.

That's the ideal, but at least where I got pressings, it wasn't done
that way, and it was understood that the final pressings would be
quieter. But if the test pressing didn't play right, or if all the
test pressings had the same "tick" in the same place, for example
there was a bubble in the plating process, you found it and got it
fixed before going on to the next step (and paying for it even if it
resulted in scrap). In general a pressing plant lets YOU do their
quality control, and if you don't, they won't either. There's a
certain amount that you just have to trust to the process, but you
find the operator and process errors however you can.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

They don't leave the stampers in the press long enough to fully
stabilize at the working temperature since they're only going to press
a few disks. The vinyl doesn't flow as well. It's an economy thing.
They'd have to charge too much for the test pressings if it tied up a
press for long enough to get real quality.


The plant I used primarily (RTI in Camarillo, CA) used to make a big fuss about
pressing longer than most of the commercial facilities. I'm thinking they left
the vinyl in for 45 to 50 seconds, instead of the usual 35 seconds, but I may
be off in recalling specifics.


Scott Fraser

That's why you press 100 or more disks: so the temp stabilizes.


Maybe for the higher budget labels, but I think the norm is to press 10 to 20
tests & pull several from the middle of the run for approval. It takes a few
pressings for a stamper to seat properly in the press, & every pressing
slightly wears out the stamper, which becomes an issue for one-step processed
lacquers.


Scott Fraser

ScotFraser wrote:
I used very pedestrian consumer stereo gear to listen to LPs. A middle of the
road Technics turntable/arm, a Shure V15 cartridge, various receivers of the
Yamaha/Sony variety. I could never justify spending audiophile sums of money on
trying make such a flawed medium sound much better. Something about polishing
turds...
Anyway, it was gear that was on a par with or slightly better than what the
typical end user would employ, therefore providing a real world test pressing
experience.

I always play test pressings with a Stanton 681 cartridge and a crappy
Microtrak arm. It's possible to cut stuff that just can't be played back
on typical consumer systems, and I figure that if it will play back without
skipping and breaking up on the 681/Microtrak combination that it won't skip
or break up on the end user's turntable.

If I'm cutting for an audiophile label where the typical playback year is
better, I'll often put excursions on there that the 681 won't play back.
Different market, different requirements.

When I was cutting 45s for jukeboxes, we had an old broadcast turntable rigged
up with a jukebox mechanism for testing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

ScotFraser wrote:
They don't leave the stampers in the press long enough to fully
stabilize at the working temperature since they're only going to press
a few disks. The vinyl doesn't flow as well. It's an economy thing.
They'd have to charge too much for the test pressings if it tied up a
press for long enough to get real quality.


The plant I used primarily (RTI in Camarillo, CA) used to make a big fuss about
pressing longer than most of the commercial facilities. I'm thinking they left
the vinyl in for 45 to 50 seconds, instead of the usual 35 seconds, but I may
be off in recalling specifics.

RTI does some of the best work in the US, and has for a good long while.
But even THEY seem to be a lot more careless about test pressings than
about final pressings.

One outfit that I am liking more and more is Alpha down in Florida. They
will do more careful test pressings for an additional fee, and it's not
a very big fee either.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

RTI is who I used also. Their disks sounded better than any others I
tried. Of course this was a while ago. Regarding time of pressing, of
course it's not just a matter of "longer is better"; what matters is the
*interaction* of type of vinyl, pressing time, pressing temp, and type
of press (often ignored but crucial).

James Boyk

ScotFraser wrote:
I used very pedestrian consumer stereo gear to listen to LPs. A middle of the
road Technics turntable/arm, a Shure V15 cartridge, various receivers of the
Yamaha/Sony variety. I could never justify spending audiophile sums of money on
trying make such a flawed medium sound much better.
Anyway, it was gear that was on a par with or slightly better than what the
typical end user would employ, therefore providing a real world test pressing
experience.

This is exactly like saying that listening to a master tape on 4"
speakers puts you in a position to give an absolute judgment on the
quality of the tape. You can hear it like a "typical end user," or you
can hear what it really is; but the same system doesn't allow you to do
both. (Of course, the flaw in the "typical end user" reasoning is that
there's so much variation in the capabilities of "t.e.u." equipment that
you can never be confident that you're really learning anything. You can
only be confident that you're *not* hearing the recording as it really is.)

Don't you see that your argument is circular? Lp, you say, is lousy; and
the "proof" is how lousy it sounds on your system. But your system is
lousy; and you justify this by *asserting* that Lp is lousy and
therefore doesn't justify anything better! In other words, you are
actually asserting and assuming what you claim as a conclusion.

I do most respectfully suggest that you listen sometime to a fine Lp on
a good playback system. And no, this does not mean "audiophile sums of
money"; these are *not* the only possibilities. It does mean a good t/t,
arm, cartridge *and preamp*, all matched properly to each other. It can
be done for very reasonable sums of money. At that point, you'll fall
over at the sound quality----if you're listening to well-made Lp's, not
ones from these "respected" plants that can't turn out a quiet pressing.
(And by the way, one great way to turn out a quiet pressing is to
"de-horn" the mother; the only problem is that this ruins the sound
quality.)

James Boyk

In article , James Boyk
wrote:

RTI is who I used also. Their disks sounded better than any others I
tried. Of course this was a while ago. Regarding time of pressing, of
course it's not just a matter of "longer is better"; what matters is the
*interaction* of type of vinyl, pressing time, pressing temp, and type
of press (often ignored but crucial).


It probably hasn't changed because RTI is the only plant I'm aware of
where every press can run its own type of vinyl and the OWNER knows how
to set up the press cycles.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing, Mastering, Audio for Picture
615.385.8051 FAX: 615.385.8196 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they ever imagined!

Bob Olhsson wrote:
It probably hasn't changed because RTI is the only plant I'm aware of
where every press can run its own type of vinyl and the OWNER knows how
to set up the press cycles.

A good sign! Actually, I don't think I've dealt with RTI since Bill
Bauer owned it---maybe I did one or two runs under the succeeding
ownership but I'm not sure---but I'm glad to know they're still in good
hands. The one problem I had with them was over centering of disks,
which is crucial for piano, of course. They had the equipment to assure
perfect centering but I couldn't get them to use it, even at extra cost.
But apart from this blind spot, they were always conscientious and
excellent to deal with. Very nice people.

RTI was in contrast to JVC Japan, which de-horned the mother I sent them
despite explicit instructions not to do so; gave me pressings which were
perfectly centered, excellently quiet ('cause of the de-horning), and
sounded like excellent piano recordings--unlike the RTIs, which sounded
like a piano; and returned the metal to me *folded up*. After this, I
could not understand why they had a good reputation.

James Boyk

"Danny Taddei" wrote in message
news:MJLMa.119013

Using auto tune on a percussive, staccato bass line sounds great because
the tuning on a bass is always poorly annotated because of the thickness
of the string. it is not something most people hear but when the auto
locks the note you do hear that. I sort of think of auto tune as type of
bass compressor - not really but it is really surprising how you clean
up the highs when you lock the intonation in on the bass. n no- it
doesn't always sound good, in fact more often then not you can't use it.
I find you have to use it on the entire song or you hear the parts that
are not effected as they stand out and sound awful in comparison. So, if
you have any sliding going on at all it just sucks.


I may have to try that; whenever I've tried to use it on upright, it simply
took too long to figure out what note to go to. And I've never felt that my
electric basses were out of tune...

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com

If I'm cutting for an audiophile label where the typical playback year is
better, I'll often put excursions on there that the 681 won't play back.
Different market, different requirements.

I would imagine any LP cutting is going to the audiophile market these days, so
you probably can be more daring with levels than in the past.


Scott Fraser

In article writes:

This is exactly like saying that listening to a master tape on 4"
speakers puts you in a position to give an absolute judgment on the
quality of the tape.

James, James, James . . . . let's not get away from the topic of test
pressings here. The idea of a test pressing is NOT to tell you what
the final pressing will sound like. It's always going to be a
surprise, hopefully not a big one. It's so that you (and the pressing
plant) has a shot at not pressing a run of disks with a mechanical
problem like a bubble in the stamper, or an overcut master (which you
should have found at the reference acetate stage).

If you want to have some idea of what it's going to sound like to the
end user, you go to the mastering session and apply your experience as
to what's going to happen between the vinyl disk and the cartridge.

I suppose that today you could get the mastering lab to give you a CD
as well as a reference acetate. You could use the CD to better
evaluate the processing, and the acetate to make sure that the cutting
will be OK on the real master.

Pressing records has never been completely predictable as far as the
final sound goes. The best you can hope for is that the mastering
engineer didn't do something stupid or offensive, and didn't make a
mistake when setting up the lathe.

For example, a friend of mine brought over some test pressings (this
was some 20 years ago) that she didn't think sounded very close to the
master tape, so we played them side-by-side. I cranked up some 3-5 kHz
on the master and by golly THEN it sounded like the ref. She called
the pressing plant and asked what was up. They said "Oh, we always put
that equalization on female singers." Because she had paid for a
reference acetate and wasn't satisfied with it, they did it again
(without the EQ, which sounded fine, though still not exactly like the
master tape, but we expected that) and didn't charge for it. If she
hadn't paid for the ref but went straight to the test pressings and
nixed the job at that stage, it would have cost her a pretty good
amount to re-do the cutting.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

can say is, that's not my experience; if my experience had been like
yours, I would have felt that I simply wasn't working with good pressing
plants, or possibly that I wasn't asking the right thing of them, or
wasn't willing to pay for it.

We all get roughly the same information, then form our own differing
conclusions. My conclusion was that the medium was not capable of faithfully
carrying the data present on the master tape, & that the mastering, processing
& stamping stages were in fact done as well as they could be done.

Scott Fraser

Cool - I'm loading a bunch of tracks into Pro Tools for a client today (both
electric and acoustic basses were used on the project); I'll give it a whirl
later....

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com

"Danny Taddei" wrote in message
news:OClNa.119836
There is a setting or how fast it works. If that was an issue you can
change the speed at which it tracks and you might like it.

On electric bass the strings bend and fingers push the strings out of
tune a little and that is just part of the sound - but- If you do a
really fast retune of the strings then the sound of the low bass really
doesn't change but the overtones are much more noticeable ( to me
anyway) and it makes the mix sound quite a bit cleaner and tighter. I
know that there is no correlation but I think of it almost like I would
with a compressor.

How knows, I might be crazy:-)

James Boyk wrote:
We just disagree. To me, the precise purpose of test pressings is to
tell me how the final vinyl will sound---and the test pressings I used
to get did precisely that.

If that's what you want, contact the factory and tell them this and they'll
be able to make test pressings that sound just like the final release, although
they will almost certainly charge you extra to do so.

You have a different take on this, and feel
that nothing can tell you what the final vinyl will sound like. All I
can say is, that's not my experience; if my experience had been like
yours, I would have felt that I simply wasn't working with good pressing
plants, or possibly that I wasn't asking the right thing of them, or
wasn't willing to pay for it.

Nothing will tell you what the final release will sound like unless you pay
a lot of money, and most folks aren't willing to do that. Some people are,
though. But most folks don't care much about the sound quality of test
pressings, so most plants just run them off quickly. If you care, tell the
plant and they'll do a nicer job.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."