Keith G wrote:
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....



Lest we forget:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60og9gwKh1o


What can I say...???

:-)

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:58:26 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

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.

Yeah, well don't worry too much about things said between Arny and
J.A. That's a long-standing feud. If you know Stereophile and its
audiophool attitudes you may well side with Arny on this one :-)

Trouble is, for me the recording is the music, the music is the
recording. I find it very hard to hear a bad performance as anything
other than a bad recording. Maybe some people can divorce the two.
Maybe such people shouldn't be involved in recording music. I don't
know.

"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.

High school chorus, natch.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news
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.

LOL!

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:58:26 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

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.

Yeah, well don't worry too much about things said between
Arny and J.A. That's a long-standing feud. If you know
Stereophile and its audiophool attitudes you may well
side with Arny on this one :-)

Iain is totally enamoured of JA, if you somehow can't discern this from the
snippet above. Iain is also totally enamoured of anybody who will criticize
me. Looks to me like you're on your way to becoming one of his good friends,
Laurence.

Trouble is, for me the recording is the music, the music
is the recording. I find it very hard to hear a bad
performance as anything other than a bad recording.
Maybe some people can divorce the two. Maybe such people
shouldn't be involved in recording music. I don't know.

Good example of how you have your head where the sun shines not, Laurence.
God help anybody who does not do music at the level you imagine that you are
at. Of course, you don't believe in God and have often expressed your
resentment towards people who do. So take it as a figure of speech.

It's a high school chorus recorded in a nearly-empty high school auditorium.
It's quite clear that you would deny the people involved with performances
like this, the benefits of a recording like this that they can use for the
purposes of instruction, or sentimentality. It *is* a pretty good replica of
what they sounded like at the judge's seats at the time.

It's dirty work, but it seems like somebody has to do it if for no reason
other than the fact that it helps people be instructed and appreciate music.

"Keith G" wrote in message

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?

:-)

It's happened before. One reason why Iain loves me so much - he can dish it
out but he can't take it.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"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.

I see considerable evidence that my instructions were bungled. It was pretty
simple - compare the FFT of the original file, to your file, to my file.
Yours departs from mine in the lower midrange, even where the boost should
only be a fraction of a dB.

Your consent is not required.

That's right Iain - I have the right to point out your dishonesty and
malfeasance, not to mention consummate technical incompetence.

Iain if I don't consent, then it is consummately dishonest of you to
attribute the file to me in any sense.

You offered advice to Keith which was implemented.

No, it was bungled.

How could Keith or anyone else evaluate your suggestion
without hearing it?

Pardon me but I'm used to working with people that can take advice like this
and understand both its purpose (guidance), and also implement it without
shooting themselves in the foot.

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

In the current context, I'd be insane to post any audio files anywhere that
you can obtain them Iain, due to your maleveolence and/or incompetence. And
ditto for Laurence, because he has no tolerance for real-world people who
love music but are not necessarily the greatest experts in the world.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


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

Unfortunately Iain, it has fallen to me to do what others here lack the
stomach to do - which is make recordings of suboptimal and even poor
musicians, in suboptimal, even horrific rooms. In many cases I'm instructed
to not do anything overt to overcome either issue.

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:28:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It's a high school chorus recorded in a nearly-empty high school auditorium.
It's quite clear that you would deny the people involved with performances
like this, the benefits of a recording like this that they can use for the
purposes of instruction, or sentimentality. It *is* a pretty good replica of
what they sounded like at the judge's seats at the time.

Fine. Remind us why you posted it?

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message

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?

:-)

It's happened before. One reason why Iain loves me so much - he can dish it
out but he can't take it.




Isn't that a Jewish thing where you try to talk your own problems on to
someone else?