Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:13:50 +0000, Keith G
wrote:

Pity the sax is restricted to playing footballs under the clarinet
melody. How about writing some two-part voicings in unison rhythm?
The clarinettist is obviously a reader more than a jazzer, so this
might also help her in developing her jazz phrasing.


You are quite correct - the clarinettist is indeed a *reader* and, in
her own words, *doesn't do busking*!!

What about you - can you record yourself playing the clarinet? I'm sure
the more the merrier and it would give Iain a chance to construct more
of a 'big band'sound!!

I'm trombone, not clarinet. And, sadly, more ex-trombone. It's one
of those things that aren't worth doing unless you do them every day,
and work moved in other directions many years ago.

Don't be so modest Laurence. We invited you, not Don Lusher!
(he's indisposed anyway:-)

Is this too mellow?
 

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:13:50 +0000, Keith G
wrote:

Pity the sax is restricted to playing footballs under the clarinet
melody. How about writing some two-part voicings in unison rhythm?
The clarinettist is obviously a reader more than a jazzer, so this
might also help her in developing her jazz phrasing.

You are quite correct - the clarinettist is indeed a *reader* and, in
her own words, *doesn't do busking*!!

What about you - can you record yourself playing the clarinet? I'm sure
the more the merrier and it would give Iain a chance to construct more
of a 'big band'sound!!

I'm trombone, not clarinet. And, sadly, more ex-trombone. It's one
of those things that aren't worth doing unless you do them every day,
and work moved in other directions many years ago.



Nice try.

So, how about you doing some trombone on the next one - I'm sure Iain
can organise summat sensible for 'returners' and 'rusty players'!!

:-)

Is this too mellow?
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk

Yeah, too true blue, I've only been here a short time but
I see that the 'mandarins' must hang around their
computers waiting for any casual aside or slightly
ambiguous comment so that they can pounce to demonstrate
their utter technical superiority.

Thanks for describing the behavoir of yourself, Kitty and Iain so well!

I see all the 'usual'
tricks..selective post editing

One of your tricks - completely ignoring posts with relevant questions that
would embarass you were you to respond truthfully.



Short people got nasty little minds and dirty little feet.

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message


Personally, I thought it was a little 'tizzy'

You got what you paid for, Kitty.

but, either way, it's a pity he had to try and make it yet another of his
obnoxious/bombastic but utterly futile attempts to get the better of
Iain!!

The thread shows that Iain first tried to get the better of me.

Interesting how history gets twisted to suit various malevolent agendas.

Is this too mellow?
 

"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
Arny Krueger wrote:
"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk

Yeah, too true blue, I've only been here a short time
but I see that the 'mandarins' must hang around their
computers waiting for any casual aside or slightly
ambiguous comment so that they can pounce to demonstrate
their utter technical superiority.

Thanks for describing the behavoir of yourself, Kitty
and Iain so well!
I see all the 'usual'
tricks..selective post editing

One of your tricks - completely ignoring posts with
relevant questions that would embarass you were you to
respond truthfully.

Short people got nasty little minds and dirty little feet.

(1) not a relevant answer.

(2) I presume you're talking about yourself as I've never thought of myself
as being short.

Is this too mellow?
 

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:13:50 +0000, Keith G
wrote:

You are quite correct - the clarinettist is indeed a *reader* and, in
her own words, *doesn't do busking*!!

So that's where she is now. Things can progress. If she likes
"Georgia" enough to take the trouble to make that recording, I expect
she likes it enough to work on learning the style?


I started recording her clart playing to keep her interest up - we moved
away from her quintet (which included Tony Michaelson when I met her)
over 10 years ago!

Fortunately, clarinet ain't the hardest thing to record - here, she is
playing both the clart and the piano:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...%20Romance.wav


Helps if you are 'double jointed'!!

:-)

Is this too mellow?
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
Arny Krueger wrote:
"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk

Yeah, too true blue, I've only been here a short time
but I see that the 'mandarins' must hang around their
computers waiting for any casual aside or slightly
ambiguous comment so that they can pounce to demonstrate
their utter technical superiority.
Thanks for describing the behavoir of yourself, Kitty
and Iain so well!
I see all the 'usual'
tricks..selective post editing
One of your tricks - completely ignoring posts with
relevant questions that would embarass you were you to
respond truthfully.

Short people got nasty little minds and dirty little feet.


I presume you're talking about yourself as I've never thought of myself
as being short.


Hit a nerve there did I. BTW did you find your goat yet?

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

Audix wrote:


Who am I? - A retired sound recording engineer approaching his
sixties.

What was I listening on? - Playback from PC using Opticom

Just had a look around the Opticom website..looks like they are doing some
interesting work on analysing perceptual measurement of voice n'stuff. German of
course.

(Fraunhofer)
mp3 codec. Monitoring via ATC SCM100A primarily, but also checked via
Rogers LS5/8 and Genelec 1031A.


A nice bunch of speakers to have access to.

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message


Personally, I thought it was a little 'tizzy'

You got what you paid for, Kitty.



Again with the *paid*?? - Heating bill come in or summat?

You replied:


"Yes.

Sounded better with a broad dip around 100 Hz, and a linear 15 dB rise
starting at 1 KHz and ending at 15 KHz."

You need only have said "Yes"

And I would have sent you a dollar for it....

LOL!!

Anyway, consider yourself *excused* from any similar enquiry in the future!!




but, either way, it's a pity he had to try and make it yet another of his
obnoxious/bombastic but utterly futile attempts to get the better of
Iain!!

The thread shows that Iain first tried to get the better of me.


Never mind you getting paid, Arny - like I said before, you should pay
Iain for the training you're getting!

Don't want me to post Domine Pt2 again, do you?

:-)



Interesting how history gets twisted to suit various malevolent agendas.


Kettle. Pot. Tar copper....

Is this too mellow?
 

Arny Krueger wrote:

Who am I? - A retired sound recording engineer
approaching his sixties.

What was I listening on? - Playback from PC using Opticom
(Fraunhofer) mp3 codec. Monitoring via ATC SCM100A
primarily, but also checked via Rogers LS5/8 and Genelec
1031A.


Audix has posted here only once before in the history of Usenet, according to google.


Whooo!! This must be *really* important to ya huh Amy.. Goggling up peoples
posting history.. LMAO

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

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.

Is this too mellow?
 

"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
Arny Krueger wrote:

Who am I? - A retired sound recording engineer
approaching his sixties.

What was I listening on? - Playback from PC using
Opticom (Fraunhofer) mp3 codec. Monitoring via ATC
SCM100A primarily, but also checked via Rogers LS5/8
and Genelec 1031A.


Audix has posted here only once before in the history
of Usenet, according to google.
Whooo!! This must be *really* important to ya huh Amy..
Goggling up peoples posting history.. LMAO

The laugh's on you if you take a created-for-the purpose nym's word for
being authoritative.

In this case, you're just admitting how hard it would be for you to do a
simple check like this.

Is this too mellow?
 

"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
Audix wrote:


Who am I? - A retired sound recording engineer
approaching his sixties.

What was I listening on? - Playback from PC using Opticom

Just had a look around the Opticom website..looks like
they are doing some interesting work on analysing
perceptual measurement of voice n'stuff. German of course.

(Fraunhofer)
mp3 codec. Monitoring via ATC SCM100A primarily, but
also checked via Rogers LS5/8 and Genelec 1031A.


A nice bunch of speakers to have access to.

What you don't seem to know is that the Fraunhofer MP3 decoder has been
around for a long time. Since they co-invented MP3, not so bad. It shows up
in all sorts of programs, both cheap and not-so-cheap.

Is this too mellow?
 

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:48:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Obviously someone that Iain brought in since no regular was supporting him,
probably a member of that unknown audio group that has excluded me. ;-)
(dev.nul = autobiographical?) has posted here only once
before in the history of Usenet, according to google.


What a strange accusation.

For the record, I have no connection with any of the persons posting
in this thread. The reason you don't see many of my posts is that I
usually have the no-archive flag set and refrain from posting unless I
think I have some useful input.

Unfortunately, the personal bickering sometimes evident within this
group makes one reluctant to post more often.

Nevertheless, perhaps my comments were of some use or interest to the
original poster.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


EQ on overall mixes is best kept to very moderate amounts,
perhaps 2-3dB.

Here's the post where Iain demonstrates his fear of equalization. At this
point we see that Iain thinks of eq only in terms of the peak increase or
decrease, and completely ignores the well-known (to many of us) effects of
center frequency and bandwidth on the audible effects of the eq. One can
presume that if Iain were faced with some music that through bad handling
required 5 dB of boost in the 1/3 octave around 15 KHz, his hand would start
shaking on the eq dial, and he would not be able to bring himself to do the
deed.

Is this too mellow?
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
Audix wrote:

Who am I? - A retired sound recording engineer
approaching his sixties.

What was I listening on? - Playback from PC using Opticom
Just had a look around the Opticom website..looks like
they are doing some interesting work on analysing
perceptual measurement of voice n'stuff. German of course.

(Fraunhofer)
mp3 codec. Monitoring via ATC SCM100A primarily, but
also checked via Rogers LS5/8 and Genelec 1031A.

A nice bunch of speakers to have access to.

What you don't seem to know is that the Fraunhofer MP3 decoder has been
around for a long time.

No **** Sherlock.

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

exalted wombat 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.

Love that screen name LP. :):)

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:00:45 +0000, bcoombes bcoombes@orangedotnet
wrote:



Just had a look around the Opticom website..looks like they are doing some
interesting work on analysing perceptual measurement of voice n'stuff. German of
course.

I was involved in developing digital audio delivery systems for the
visually impaired. My early contact was with the Fraunhofer Institute,
when mp3 was in its infancy. Later commercial exploitation was handled
by Opticom.

There is a basic implementation of the Fraunhofer mp3 codec built into
the various Windows operating systems. The codec has been refined and
tweaked over the years and is available as a professional version from
Opticom.


Monitoring via ATC SCM100A primarily, but also checked via
Rogers LS5/8 and Genelec 1031A.


A nice bunch of speakers to have access to.

Largely the result of hearing them in my professional life and
deciding I liked them enough to purchase for home use.

I blame various people for leading me astray.

The ATCs came about after spending some time with Nimbus.

LS5/8s were often heard during visits to the BBC and the late Angus
McKenzie.

The Genelecs were the result of trying to find a good small-ish
speaker to install in a suite of speech recording studios. I
discovered that the 1031A was a rather good unit.

I can make analytical judgements and enjoy listening to good music on
any of them.

I prefer active monitors as you have a fixed entity. The only passives
I have are the LS3/5As which are normally powered by BBC designed
AM8/17 monoblocks.

Interestingly, all my speaker choices were initially made by live A /
B comparisons with the source performance, rather than using
commercial CDs etc.

Is this too mellow?
 

"exalted wombat" wrote in
message

This time first time poster who showed up to throw a little dirt around...


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.

But this makes a point - nobody knows for sure what's *right* without a more
reliable reference than whatever they might remember.

But you probably think you deserve some kind of award for figuring up that a
linear slope starting at 1 KHz and ending up at +15 KHz would increase the
intensity of sound at 2.44 KHz.

Of course the mention of 2.44 KHz as opposed to 2.43 or 2.45 KHz is
sheerist BS. Nobody can hear in 100ths of an octave. But a fertile
imagination can!

Is this too mellow?
 

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:40:36 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

I'm trombone, not clarinet. And, sadly, more ex-trombone. It's one
of those things that aren't worth doing unless you do them every day,
and work moved in other directions many years ago.

Don't be so modest Laurence. We invited you, not Don Lusher!
(he's indisposed anyway:-)

It's not modesty! I really haven't taken it out the case for years.

Is this too mellow?
 

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:22:56 +0000, bcoombes bcoombes@orangedotnet
wrote:

exalted wombat 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.

Love that screen name LP. :):)

Yeah. I was at another computer and had to use Google Groups.

Is this too mellow?
 

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.

Have a listen. See what YOU think it is, and whether emphasising it
improves the mix. We could get this thread back on track.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:40:36 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

I'm trombone, not clarinet. And, sadly, more ex-trombone. It's one
of those things that aren't worth doing unless you do them every day,
and work moved in other directions many years ago.

Don't be so modest Laurence. We invited you, not Don Lusher!
(he's indisposed anyway:-)

It's not modesty! I really haven't taken it out the case for years.

Do it. Today:-)
To give you a bit of impetus:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/Music/TTT.mp3

Regards
Iain

Is this too mellow?
 

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


EQ on overall mixes is best kept to very moderate amounts,
perhaps 2-3dB.

Here's the post where Iain demonstrates his fear of equalization. At this
point we see that Iain thinks of eq only in terms of the peak increase or
decrease, and completely ignores the well-known (to many of us) effects of
center frequency and bandwidth on the audible effects of the eq. One can
presume that if Iain were faced with some music that through bad handling
required 5 dB of boost in the 1/3 octave around 15 KHz, his hand would
start shaking on the eq dial, and he would not be able to bring himself to
do the deed.

LOL:-)

I aways err on the side of caution, having been taught that
excessive amounts of EQ on overall mixes is not prudent.
Radical changes should only be made at channel or track
level. Many years of professional practical work has proved
this to be true. Never EQ anything just because you can -
only if after very careful comparison and evaluation, it needs it.

Recordings can easily be destroyed by excessive EQ.
You have demonstrated this point admirably by both
your suggestions to Keith for "Georgia", and your own
recording of "Domine".

But thanks for your participation anyway.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Audix" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:00:45 +0000, bcoombes bcoombes@orangedotnet
wrote:



Just had a look around the Opticom website..looks like they are doing some
interesting work on analysing perceptual measurement of voice n'stuff.
German of
course.

I was involved in developing digital audio delivery systems for the
visually impaired. My early contact was with the Fraunhofer Institute,
when mp3 was in its infancy. Later commercial exploitation was handled
by Opticom.

There is a basic implementation of the Fraunhofer mp3 codec built into
the various Windows operating systems. The codec has been refined and
tweaked over the years and is available as a professional version from
Opticom.


Monitoring via ATC SCM100A primarily, but also checked via
Rogers LS5/8 and Genelec 1031A.


A nice bunch of speakers to have access to.

Largely the result of hearing them in my professional life and
deciding I liked them enough to purchase for home use.

I blame various people for leading me astray.

The ATCs came about after spending some time with Nimbus.

LS5/8s were often heard during visits to the BBC and the late Angus
McKenzie.

The Genelecs were the result of trying to find a good small-ish
speaker to install in a suite of speech recording studios. I
discovered that the 1031A was a rather good unit.

I can make analytical judgements and enjoy listening to good music on
any of them.

I prefer active monitors as you have a fixed entity. The only passives
I have are the LS3/5As which are normally powered by BBC designed
AM8/17 monoblocks.

Interestingly, all my speaker choices were initially made by live A /
B comparisons with the source performance, rather than using
commercial CDs etc.

Thanks, Audix, for your partiticipation in this thread. UKRA can
get a little boisterous at times, but nothing really compared with
some other audio groups:-) It would be pretty dull if we were
all in agreement in everything - same amp, no vinyl, no valves,
same speakers, etc.

Audio is no longer the hands-on hobby it used to be, but this
recording has been an attempt to do something practical, as
a group project.

Is this too mellow?
 

Audix wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:00:45 +0000, bcoombes bcoombes@orangedotnet
wrote:
A nice bunch of speakers to have access to.

Largely the result of hearing them in my professional life and
deciding I liked them enough to purchase for home use.

I blame various people for leading me astray.

The ATCs came about after spending some time with Nimbus.

LS5/8s were often heard during visits to the BBC and the late Angus
McKenzie.

The Genelecs were the result of trying to find a good small-ish
speaker to install in a suite of speech recording studios. I
discovered that the 1031A was a rather good unit.

I can make analytical judgements and enjoy listening to good music on
any of them.

I prefer active monitors as you have a fixed entity. The only passives
I have are the LS3/5As which are normally powered by BBC designed
AM8/17 monoblocks.

Interestingly, all my speaker choices were initially made by live A /
B comparisons with the source performance, rather than using
commercial CDs etc.



Probably the best way to sort out the wheat from the chaff, not an option
available to most of course. In an earlier [square wave] thread we were
discussing how the audio magazines seem to have deteriorated and I do remember
that at one time they would try to do 'live' comparisons...these days it's
mostly superficial comparisons based on a quick listen to the reviewers
favourite cd's.

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
...
Audix wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:00:45 +0000, bcoombes bcoombes@orangedotnet
wrote:
A nice bunch of speakers to have access to.

Largely the result of hearing them in my professional life and
deciding I liked them enough to purchase for home use.

I blame various people for leading me astray.

The ATCs came about after spending some time with Nimbus.

LS5/8s were often heard during visits to the BBC and the late Angus
McKenzie.

The Genelecs were the result of trying to find a good small-ish
speaker to install in a suite of speech recording studios. I
discovered that the 1031A was a rather good unit.

I can make analytical judgements and enjoy listening to good music on
any of them. I prefer active monitors as you have a fixed entity. The
only passives
I have are the LS3/5As which are normally powered by BBC designed
AM8/17 monoblocks.

Interestingly, all my speaker choices were initially made by live A /
B comparisons with the source performance, rather than using
commercial CDs etc.



Probably the best way to sort out the wheat from the chaff, not an option
available to most of course.

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

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.

Few people get the opportunity these days, except at concerts,
to hear musical instruments "in the flesh" as it were, and are
sometimes quite surprised when they do.

Iain

Is this too mellow?
 

"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.

Yes. The reed is a bit spitty. Put it down to
embouchure, a soft reed and my efforts
at subtone. I'm not a pro saxophone player.

The .wav file is considerably cleaner, so conversion
to -mp3 may have made the artefact more
noticeable.

Did you prefer the "natural" or "EQ'd mix" ?

Iain

Is this too mellow?
 

"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


So, it's a simple case of 'better or worse?'...??

What does the team think?


The original is definitely not mellow. The composite nature is
revealed however. Clarinet sounds roughly as one would expect but the
saxophone is rather too breathy (on axis?) for my taste.

My saxophone idol is Ben Webster:-(
His tone is *much* breathier"

This latter
may be due to microphone positioning or the characteristic of the mic
itself, with which I'm unfamiliar.

The C1000s is a bit on the bright side. Instead of just using EQ
to flatten it out, I was interested to see what I could do with
positioning. Many people record the tenor saxophone by
just placing the mic above the bell. This is not the best option
as the higher notes come out from their repective sound holes
further up the "tube"

I placed one of the AKG pair above the G# key, and the
other closer to the bell - distance about 30cms.

The piece comes over as being put
together, rather than existing in a natural acoustic setting.

Oh it's a composite alright - recorded in three different
countries, and played by people who have never met each
other.

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.



We all hear things differently, so my comments are purely personal
observations.

Who am I? - A retired sound recording engineer approaching his
sixties.

What was I listening on? - Playback from PC using Opticom (Fraunhofer)
mp3 codec. Monitoring via ATC SCM100A primarily, but also checked via
Rogers LS5/8 and Genelec 1031A.

Thanks for your feedback. We have been talking on this group
about making a shared project recording for may years, and now
in a very simple form, we have done it.


Regards
Iain.

Is this too mellow?
 

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:54:50 +0200, "Iain Churches"
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.

Yes. The reed is a bit spitty. Put it down to
embouchure, a soft reed and my efforts
at subtone. I'm not a pro saxophone player.

The .wav file is considerably cleaner, so conversion
to -mp3 may have made the artefact more
noticeable.

Did you prefer the "natural" or "EQ'd mix" ?

I like the reduced mid-range tubbiness of the EQd mix, but not the
screechy top end.

Is this too mellow?
 

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:56:57 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

The piece comes over as being put
together, rather than existing in a natural acoustic setting.

Oh it's a composite alright - recorded in three different
countries, and played by people who have never met each
other.

A circumstance that makes it very hard for the players to listen to
each other and co-operate stylistically and rhythmically. It's easy
to phrase together when you can see each other (a little rehearsal
doesn't hurt either :-)

Is this too mellow?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

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

So, it's a simple case of 'better or worse?'...??

What does the team think?

I finally did the obvious and double-checked your work Keith.

I also listened to it. Didn't sound right.

The facts became clear when I compared a detailed FFT analysis of the two
files.

Kitty, since you apparently don't have the same sophisticated DAW tools as I
do, you were unable to duplicate my work well enough to produce a file that
was representative of my quick recommendation. I did my work with DAW
software FFT-based filters while it appears that you did your work with
something less accurate, perhaps an octave equalizer. You were unable to
follow my recipe exactly and ended up with more boost at 1 and 10 KHz.

Kitty, due to your obvious need to libel me whenever you can, you and Iain
took a quick recommendation and falsely and deceptively turned it into a
test of my technical skills. The moral of the story is that when you are
dealing with people that have an emotional need to salve their hurt egos at
any cost to logic, reason, and truth; no good deed goes unpunished.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Audio is no longer the hands-on hobby it used to be,

Iain speaks for just himself. He's never been hands-on with recording in
his life, even though he was a minor functionary at a well known record
label. If recording had been a hands-on hobby with Iain, he would have at
least a few microphones and he has repeatedly told us he has none.

I find it amusing that after stepping in the do-do on the sidewalk with his
C1000 recommendation, Iain is actually going to get his hands a little dirty
and touch a microphone. That's a victory for me, because I think that
recording can be a very good hands-on occupation, whether at the amateur
level or even professionally. At this point Iain is neither but at least has
taken a few steps in what may be the right direction.

but this recording has been an attempt to do something
practical, as a group project.

It's a practical circle-jerk.

Let's review what happened.

Kitty posted a MP3 file and asked a leading question about it. I made the
mistake of responding honestly and sincerely with a first cut at an
approximate correction to the file that by all accounts did address Kitty's
question. Nobody claim that my proposed change stopped the file from being
"Too mellow".

Kitty probably did the best job he could of implementing my suggestion with
his limited skills and equipment, and posted the file he fabricated as
evidence as part of a trumped=up test of my recording skills.

Iain jumped right on it and gave the expected negative reaction. He further
seems to have dredged up two people are far from being UKRA regulars, to
agree with him. One never ever posted here, and the other posted once a
number of months ago. Of course they are going to deny this to retain Iain's
friendship, but the record of Google is clear- they had no significant
interest in UKRA until Iain started libeling me based on Kitty's botched
file.

So what we have is a complete misappropriation of my casual suggestion by
Iain and Kitty, Kitty fabricating evidence, Iain trying to force his
opinions on the group as part of his ongoing vendetta against me, followed
by Iain dredging up his friends to agree with him.

My advice - steer clear of the whole matter and let me have the fun of
further exposing their malfeasance.

Is this too mellow?
 

"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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

There's a general rule for setting up a monitoring environment for checking
tracks, and that is to use speakers or headphones that are hotter than you
would use if you were listening for pleasure or mastering. The goal is to
hear any flaws such as clipping, not to have a natural sound which is
impossible at this point due to the close micing.

Few people get the opportunity these days, except at concerts, to hear
musical instruments "in the flesh" as it were,
and are sometimes quite surprised when they do.

This is even true of people who work in audio production, but do not record
live events.

Is this too mellow?
 

"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.

Is this too mellow?
 

Audix wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:48:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Obviously someone that Iain brought in since no regular was supporting him,
probably a member of that unknown audio group that has excluded me. ;-)
(dev.nul = autobiographical?) has posted here only once
before in the history of Usenet, according to google.


What a strange accusation.

For the record, I have no connection with any of the persons posting
in this thread. The reason you don't see many of my posts is that I
usually have the no-archive flag set and refrain from posting unless I
think I have some useful input.

Unfortunately, the personal bickering sometimes evident within this
group makes one reluctant to post more often.


The 'bickering' in ukra is almost polite, tea-time smalltalk compared
with the 'death threats' and raging personal insults &c. you can easily
find in many other newsgroups!!

:-)



Nevertheless, perhaps my comments were of some use or interest to the
original poster.



They were indeed - thank you for taking the time and trouble to listen
to the tracks and comment on them.

Is this too mellow?
 

Iain Churches wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:40:36 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

I'm trombone, not clarinet. And, sadly, more ex-trombone. It's one
of those things that aren't worth doing unless you do them every day,
and work moved in other directions many years ago.
Don't be so modest Laurence. We invited you, not Don Lusher!
(he's indisposed anyway:-)
It's not modesty! I really haven't taken it out the case for years.

Do it. Today:-)
To give you a bit of impetus:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/Music/TTT.mp3



Just a simple backing line to start with would be handy!

Is this too mellow?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:40:36 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

I'm trombone, not clarinet. And, sadly, more ex-trombone. It's one
of those things that aren't worth doing unless you do them every day,
and work moved in other directions many years ago.
Don't be so modest Laurence. We invited you, not Don Lusher!
(he's indisposed anyway:-)
It's not modesty! I really haven't taken it out the case for years.

Do it. Today:-)
To give you a bit of impetus:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/Music/TTT.mp3



Just a simple backing line to start with would be handy!

Good track isn't it?

If that doesn't get Laurence's trombone player's adrenalin
pumping then nothing will.

Iain

Is this too mellow?
 

Iain Churches wrote:



Few people get the opportunity these days, except at concerts,
to hear musical instruments "in the flesh" as it were, and are
sometimes quite surprised when they do.


I have posted here before on a number of occasions - ****s who are stuck
on the 'accuracy' aspect of *hifi* equipment and think their 'porridge
pump' sound system delivers the 'real thing' can come here and hear a
parp or two on Swim's clart....

Is this too mellow?
 

Iain Churches 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


So, it's a simple case of 'better or worse?'...??

What does the team think?

The original is definitely not mellow. The composite nature is
revealed however. Clarinet sounds roughly as one would expect but the
saxophone is rather too breathy (on axis?) for my taste.

My saxophone idol is Ben Webster:-(
His tone is *much* breathier"


Fweh, fweh, fwehhhh...

:-)