Laurence Payne wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:54:34 +0000, Keith G
wrote:

Don't say it - *Domine*...!!!??

Was Arny's recording THAT bad? Was it posted to show off technical
skill or for the musical content? Just trying to be charitable.


It was either a good recording of a crap performance or the other way
round! It sounded like it was recorded over the phone and had, IIRC, a
heavy imbalance toward the left channel!

I'm not going to post it again. If you want to hear it, email me direct
on an address that works and I'll attempt (new everything here - no
guarantees) to email it to you - it's 7.3 MB according to 'Finder' on my
machine!!

Either way, good or bad, it falls a long way short of anything you would
expect from someone who tries to come over like some sort of 'expert' as
Arny does and who is so strangely hostile and belligerent with it!

Begs the question - is the best recording one which is strictly accurate
*irrespective* or one which 'improves' on the source a little, if/when
necessary?

(Even mediaeval portrait painters knew the value of a little
'PhotoShopping'...!! ;-)

"Audix" wrote in message

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:01:02 +0000, Keith G
wrote:

Anyway, here's the original again:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaM.mp3


And here's Arny's suggestion (EQ is not *my* work):

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaMEQ.mp3


The EQ'd version sounds awful to me. Excessive HF lift to
the point that it becomes annoying - completely destroys
the musical cohesiveness and tonality of the piece.

Probably due to Iain's bungled attempt at implementing my suggestion using
less sophisticated resources.

"exalted wombat" wrote in
message

There's some distortion in the sax sound at 2.44. Maybe
in the recording chain, maybe spit sound from the sax,
maybe a MP3 artifact. Whatever it is, the eq'd version
emphasises it.

The Eq'd version was done by Iain, who bungled it, probably because he
lacked the more sophisticated tools that I used, maybe just Iain being Iain.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audix" wrote in message

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:01:02 +0000, Keith G
wrote:

Anyway, here's the original again:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaM.mp3


And here's Arny's suggestion (EQ is not *my* work):

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaMEQ.mp3


The EQ'd version sounds awful to me. Excessive HF lift to
the point that it becomes annoying - completely destroys
the musical cohesiveness and tonality of the piece.

Probably due to Iain's bungled attempt at implementing my suggestion using
less sophisticated resources.


Yeah he's a real bungler, I mean the European Space Agency only hires
bunglers...Oh no...Wait a minute..

--
Bill Coombes

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audix" wrote in message

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:01:02 +0000, Keith G
wrote:

Anyway, here's the original again:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaM.mp3


And here's Arny's suggestion (EQ is not *my* work):

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaMEQ.mp3


The EQ'd version sounds awful to me. Excessive HF lift to
the point that it becomes annoying - completely destroys
the musical cohesiveness and tonality of the piece.

Probably due to Iain's bungled attempt at implementing my suggestion using
less sophisticated resources.




OK, at least you seem to finally realise it was not me 'bungling' your
suggestion, but how has Iain 'bungled it'? What has he done wrong?

Why don't *you* implement your suggestion and post the result - it
really has reached the 'put up or shut the **** up' point now...

Don't worry, we will not charge you for the download....

Lol!!

Arny Krueger wrote:
"exalted wombat" wrote in
message

There's some distortion in the sax sound at 2.44. Maybe
in the recording chain, maybe spit sound from the sax,
maybe a MP3 artifact. Whatever it is, the eq'd version
emphasises it.

The Eq'd version was done by Iain, who bungled it, probably because he
lacked the more sophisticated tools that I used,



'Used' - like you've already done it (EQ'd the original)?

Post a link to the the result, Arny....

"Keith G" wrote in message


OK, at least you seem to finally realise it was not me
'bungling' your suggestion,

I was mislead by the fact that you posted it on UKRA.

but how has Iain 'bungled it'? What has he done wrong?

He failed to get the same results as I did.

Why don't *you* implement your suggestion and post the
result - it really has reached the 'put up or shut the
**** up' point now...

Again, given the attitude of you and your posse Kitty, no matter what I post
you will **** on it.

"Keith G" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"exalted wombat" wrote in
message

There's some distortion in the sax sound at 2.44. Maybe
in the recording chain, maybe spit sound from the sax,
maybe a MP3 artifact. Whatever it is, the eq'd version
emphasises it.

The Eq'd version was done by Iain, who bungled it,
probably because he lacked the more sophisticated tools
that I used,



'Used' - like you've already done it (EQ'd the original)?

Post a link to the the result, Arny....

I'm no fool Kitty - no matter what I post, it will be ****ed on by you, Iain
and your posse.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message


OK, at least you seem to finally realise it was not me
'bungling' your suggestion,

I was mislead by the fact that you posted it on UKRA.



OK, I can see how that would happen. I posted the 2 Georgias mostly
because it was my idea in the first place and possibly also because I
have absolutely no connection with any branch of the music industry...

....but think of the even bigger ****storm you would have tried to create
if Iain *had* posted them?




but how has Iain 'bungled it'? What has he done wrong?

He failed to get the same results as I did.


So post them. Let us see what all the fuss is about.



Why don't *you* implement your suggestion and post the
result - it really has reached the 'put up or shut the
**** up' point now...

Again, given the attitude of you and your posse Kitty, no matter what I post
you will **** on it.


I didn't **** on the 'bungled' version of you suggestion - why should I
**** on your 'better implemented' version?

I think you imbue me (and others here) with having the same nasty little
mean streak you and *your posse* usually display....

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"exalted wombat" wrote in
message

There's some distortion in the sax sound at 2.44. Maybe
in the recording chain, maybe spit sound from the sax,
maybe a MP3 artifact. Whatever it is, the eq'd version
emphasises it.
The Eq'd version was done by Iain, who bungled it,
probably because he lacked the more sophisticated tools
that I used,


'Used' - like you've already done it (EQ'd the original)?

Post a link to the the result, Arny....

I'm no fool Kitty - no matter what I post, it will be ****ed on by you, Iain
and your posse.




Try to have the balls to stand by what you claim - if you are right and
your version is a better implementation of your *original suggestion*
I'm sure Iain would be the first to say so!

(There's not many here really do live in La La Land, Arnie - mostly we
say what we at least *think* we see and hear..!! ;-)