Is this too mellow?
 

No, Arny. You took a standard term and decided to invent your own
definition. And you're even muddling yourself.

"I don't consider 100 Hz to be bass. I consider it to be the lowest
end of midrange. I consider 32-64 Hz to be bass."

"And then Iain you provided a track with even more eq than that,
particularly in the midrange."

"The fact that Bobby O wrote a book with frequency ranges that differ
from my preferred way of thinking by less than an octave..."

If you're defining bass as "what bass instruments play" surely you can
allow them more than one octave? And how do you class 64Hz - 100Hz,
the "lowest end of midrange"?

BO defines bass as extending to 250Hz. You think it stops at 64Hz.
That's two octaves, not "less than an octave".

"Midrange" is a useful concept, but a lot less useful if you extend
it from the range that honks down into the range that booms.

In the places you frequent, what are you recording sub-50Hz except
air-conditioner noise anyway? Do you leave a lot of this range in the
finished product? I bet your less audiophile listeners love you :-)

This is all rather too easy. Are you SURE you're Arny? He's mad, but
not normally THIS mad.

Is this too mellow?
 

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:15:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Thanks a lot Iain for definatively showing that you don't live in the same
universe as just about everybody.

Almost all people alive today think that contemporary music is the music
that is played and listened to by almost all of the people who our
contemporaries. Virtually none of them know who Groves is, or would care
what he says if they do.

No again, Arny. It's another of those established terms that
seemingly haven't reached your private universe. Like "Classical",
"Baroque" and "Romantic" they have specific musical usage, as well as
a more general meaning. Within the music-recording community it's
best to use them correctly, else you'll have to make constant
explanations of your personal usage.

Is this too mellow?
 

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

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

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

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

Also, the American idea of bass seems to in general
run far richer.

And yet you proposed "a broad dip" around 100Hz.

That might be your idea of bass, Iain.

But you contradict yourself with your statement above,
and then thinning out the LF.

No contradiction at all. In fact the two statements
are exactly complementary.

I don't consider 100 Hz to be bass. I consider it to be
the lowest end of midrange. I consider 32-64 Hz to be
bass.

The string bass is, as its name suggests, a bass
instrument? It's low E is 41Hz and a B, played on the
G string is 246 Hz

Obviously Iain has no clue about the bass instruments
that are used in contemporary music.

By contemporary music, most of us mean classical music
written since 1945. (see Grove's)

LOL!

Thanks a lot Iain for definatively showing that you don't live in the same
universe as just about everybody.

Almost all people alive today think that contemporary music is the music
that is played and listened to by almost all of the people who our
contemporaries. Virtually none of them know who Groves is, or would care
what he says if they do.


Grove is a music reference dictionary,a standard work, in four volumes
not a person:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grove_D..._and_Musicians

Look up contemporary music.....



Iain

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:15:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Thanks a lot Iain for definitively showing that you
don't live in the same universe as just about everybody.

Almost all people alive today think that contemporary
music is the music that is played and listened to by
almost all of the people who our contemporaries.
Virtually none of them know who Groves is, or would care
what he says if they do.

No again, Arny. It's another of those established terms
that seemingly haven't reached your private universe.

"My Private Universe"?

LOL!

Like "Classical", "Baroque" and "Romantic" they have
specific musical usage, as well as a more general
meaning.

What you don't seem to know Laurence is that for the average 20-35 year-old,
classical = Beatles.

Within the music-recording community it's best
to use them correctly, else you'll have to make constant
explanations of your personal usage.

I can be circumspect around people who like to think they are more
knowledgeable than the average bear. Thing is, we all need to be
knowledgeable about the average bear.

Is this too mellow?
 

Arny Krueger wrote:


So one and all, read Bobby's book about mixing, but it will be a cosmic
waste of time unless you actually go hands one with a mixing console fairly
often. Good fun for technical voyeurs, and there's nothing wrong with that.
But, its not me. For me mixing fair-sized events is a participant sport that
I play several times a week.


The way I have it is you record only the one ensemble - no?

Is this too mellow?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

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

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

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

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

Also, the American idea of bass seems to in
general run far richer.

And yet you proposed "a broad dip" around 100Hz.

That might be your idea of bass, Iain.

But you contradict yourself with your statement
above, and then thinning out the LF.

No contradiction at all. In fact the two statements
are exactly complementary.

I don't consider 100 Hz to be bass. I consider it to
be the lowest end of midrange. I consider 32-64 Hz
to be bass.

The string bass is, as its name suggests, a bass
instrument? It's low E is 41Hz and a B, played on the
G string is 246 Hz

Obviously Iain has no clue about the bass instruments
that are used in contemporary music.

By contemporary music, most of us mean classical music
written since 1945. (see Grove's)

LOL!

Thanks a lot Iain for definatively showing that you
don't live in the same universe as just about everybody.

Almost all people alive today think that contemporary
music is the music that is played and listened to by
almost all of the people who our contemporaries.
Virtually none of them know who Groves is, or would care
what he says if they do.


Grove is a music reference dictionary,a standard work, in
four volumes not a person:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grove_D..._and_Musicians

Look up contemporary music.....

Talk about basing your life on books that almost nobody (in the real world)
ever reads! Far more people have read the Bible, which is another book that
few people actually read or follow.

Is this too mellow?
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

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

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

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
Also, the American idea of bass seems to in general
run far richer.
And yet you proposed "a broad dip" around 100Hz.
That might be your idea of bass, Iain.
But you contradict yourself with your statement above,
and then thinning out the LF.
No contradiction at all. In fact the two statements
are exactly complementary.

I don't consider 100 Hz to be bass. I consider it to be
the lowest end of midrange. I consider 32-64 Hz to be
bass.
The string bass is, as its name suggests, a bass
instrument? It's low E is 41Hz and a B, played on the
G string is 246 Hz
Obviously Iain has no clue about the bass instruments
that are used in contemporary music.
By contemporary music, most of us mean classical music
written since 1945. (see Groves)

LOL!

Thanks a lot Iain for definatively showing that you don't live in the same
universe as just about everybody.

Almost all people alive today think that contemporary music is the music
that is played and listened to by almost all of the people who our
contemporaries. Virtually none of them know who Groves is, or would care
what he says if they do.




'Who Groves is'....???

LOL!

He's got no ****ing idea has he? Wot a bull****ter!!

Is this too mellow?
 

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:00:08 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Within the music-recording community it's best
to use them correctly, else you'll have to make constant
explanations of your personal usage.

I can be circumspect around people who like to think they are more
knowledgeable than the average bear. Thing is, we all need to be
knowledgeable about the average bear.

Wriggle away. You know perfectly well where you're posting. Use
appropriate terminology if you want to be understood.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


So one and all, read Bobby's book about mixing, but it
will be a cosmic waste of time unless you actually go
hands one with a mixing console fairly often. Good fun
for technical voyeurs, and there's nothing wrong with
that. But, its not me. For me mixing fair-sized events
is a participant sport that I play several times a week.


The way I have it is you record only the one ensemble -
no?

If you are talking about the church thing, there are actually two overapping
ensembles, the traditional ensemble and the contemporary ensemble. There is
also the speech, the drama, and production and some authoring of audio and
video that is used various ways, including accompianment.

The band and choir festival thing which is starting shortly, involves well
over 100 ensembles per year.

Is this too mellow?
 

Iain Churches wrote:



Almost all people alive today think that contemporary music is the music
that is played and listened to by almost all of the people who our
contemporaries. Virtually none of them know who Groves is,


:-)



or would care
what he says if they do.


Grove is a music reference dictionary,a standard work, in four volumes
not a person:


Tell him, FFS....