Is this too mellow?
 

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:14:05 +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!!

OK. The closing section of "Domine" has reached me. I can't judge
recording quality on this laptop, that will have to wait for tomorrow
and better speakers. I can judge the performance. It's the sort of
thing that might be treasured by friends and family of the singers but
shouldn't really be allowed to escape to a wider audience. The last
note is particularly embarrassing - the ladies get over-excited, start
shouting and go very sharp.

Is this too mellow?
 

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

Is this too mellow?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
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!

Indeed. To have Arny post something that actually reflects his
clasmed skills, and matched the expectations of others would be
most refreshing.

Is this too mellow?
 

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

It was done strictly to your instructions.
If you doubt this, please supply the correct version so that
they can be carefully compared.

Why did you not post a suggested corrected version in the first
place, using your "sophisticated tools" ? :-)

Perhaps it was because you just looked at the frequency
analysis on your PC, but did not listen carefully on a good
audio system to find out what your suggestion really sounded
like.


Your dishonesty in this matter does you no credit:-(

Is this too mellow?
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:27:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.
If its spit, its not distortion. Since you don't
know, your comment is meaningless.
Not worth arguing. "Unwanted sound" then.
Accurate use of words seems to be a lost art around
here.
Have a listen.
I have already listened to my own track, and compared
it to the fiction that Kitty posted here. He didn't
implement my recommendation exactly. Besides, my
recommendation was a just first cut, not a recipie for
a finished, mastered recording.

Wake up THICKO..!!

I only recorded the clarinet - I mixed NOTHING, I EQ'd
NOTHING.

What is this?

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

It's your suggestion EQ'd by *Iain* and sent to me for
purposes of posting a 'before and after'/'better or
worse' comparison'!

The key point being that this is not a file that I produced, or advised or
consented to. In short, its something that Iain cobbled together for
less-than-honorable purposes.

It is a file that was produced according to the instructions
given by you in this thread. Your consent is not required.

You offered advice to Keith which was implemented.
How could Keith or anyone else evaluate your suggestion
without hearing it?

If your instructions were incorrect, and your own version
sounds different please post it. It will make an interesting
comparison.

Thanks in advance
Iain

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:04:32 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

Over Christmas, I got talking to a very upper class lady (as one does)
She told me that she had been in London, and very much enjoyed
a visit to Covent Garden (opera house not market)

We got talking about music. I mentioned playing the saxophone.
She said "Oh what fun, and jolly easy too I suppose. You just
blow and wiggle your fingers"

I was out on a gig with a xylophone player. "It must be wonderful to
have your gift!" I looked at Syd. He looked at me. "Yes! I
remember it well - last Tuesday it quite suddenly came upon me that I
could play this thing. When was it for you?"

But sax? Yeah, blow and wiggle just about covers it.

If only:-)

Is this too mellow?
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Most recordings are not made with all players present in
a single acoustic, and so a real A/B is not usually
possible.

This means that there are no comparisons in the sense that we do all the
time with ABX.

Correct. It is not possible to A/B between what you hear sitting in
the studio, and what you hear from the control room monitors, as
yuo cannot be in two places at once:-)

Conclusions are based on memories that lose most of their detail within a
few seconds.

It takes only seconds to walk from studio to control room.


All studio trainees get this opportunity for recordings
made straight stereo.

If you're multitracking single players or small groups, there's a pretty
good chance that many if not most tracks are mono.

Lots of stereo tracking, most keyboards, strings, brass, woodwind
and saxes. Stereo harp is wonderful too.

Typically, the studio is a relatively small, dead room and of course the
micing is close.

From where do you get that idea?
We used to play indoor rugby in Decca studio III.

This does not produce tracks that are accurate representations of what
one would usually hear if they were in the studio at the time of the
recording, as the sonic viewing point of the listener is vastly different
from that of the microphone.

In multitrack, especially in projects using outboard processing,
that is not imnportant. The sound as heard in the studio is only the
raw audio from which the finshed sound is crafted.

It's enormously useful and a very
interesting experience to sit out in the studio below and
slightly back from the main pair and just listen.

When multitracking this way, there is no main pair. Main pairs relate to
recording large ensembles with a combination of a main pair and spot mics.

I specifically excluded mulitrack in my previous post (the part which you
snipped) , when I stated:

**All studio trainees get this opportunity for recordings made straight
stereo. It's enormously useful and a very interesting experience to
sit out in the studio below and slightly back from the main pair and
just listen. When the take is completed you can go back to the
control room and hear the same performance from the monitors**

In fact, even in multitrack, many engineers use additional
distanced pairs, we call them air mics over here, for drums,
brass and of course for strings.

When the take is completed you can go back to the control room
and hear the same performance from the monitors.

When you listen to the monitors, the question is not whether the recording
sounds natural at this point, but whether it has any obvious flaws. Close
micing always produces a certain characteristic, essentually unnatural
sound that is up front, lacks natural reverb, may include a fair amount of
lower midrange boost due to proximity effect, etc.

Who said anything about close mic technique?
But a clean, close mic signal, with low leakage is a very good
place to start in many types of recording. Try it sometime, Arny


Regards
Iain

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...

OK. The closing section of "Domine" has reached me. I can't judge
recording quality on this laptop, that will have to wait for tomorrow
and better speakers. I can judge the performance. It's the sort of
thing that might be treasured by friends and family of the singers but
shouldn't really be allowed to escape to a wider audience. The last
note is particularly embarrassing - the ladies get over-excited, start
shouting and go very sharp.

If Arny could have been content with being a volunteer at his
church making a few amateur recordings for internal use - that
would have been fine. Such charitable work is laudable.

As I understand it from John Atkinson, (formerly of EMI
Abbey Road and currently editor of Stereophile) Arny
posted Domine to a pro group as an example of his skills,
when his claim to be a professional recording engineer
was challenged by so many people.

This puts the matter in a whole new perspective. Material
which would normally receive praise and encouragement
from one and all if made by an ethusisastic amateur church
volunteer, is no longer juged by the same criteria when
professional status is claimed.

There is nothing demeaning about amateur status, we are
all amateurs in almost everything. I _stress_ the fact when
I perform any music, that I am *not* a professional player.

Is this too mellow?
 

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:14:05 +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!!

OK. The closing section of "Domine" has reached me.



I think if someone put it on YouTube it might even eventually overtake
the Numa Numa Song....



I can't judge
recording quality on this laptop, that will have to wait for tomorrow
and better speakers. I can judge the performance. It's the sort of
thing that might be treasured by friends and family of the singers but
shouldn't really be allowed to escape to a wider audience. The last
note is particularly embarrassing - the ladies get over-excited, start
shouting and go very sharp.


The whole thing sounds as though it was lifted from an answerphone
recording....

Is this too mellow?
 

Iain Churches wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"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.






Arnie's left you *speechless* Iain?

:-)