Is this too mellow?
 

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'...!! ;-)

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


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?
 

"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.

Is this too mellow?
 

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

Is this too mellow?
 

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!!

Is this too mellow?
 

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....

Is this too mellow?
 

"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.

Is this too mellow?
 

"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.

Is this too mellow?
 

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....

Is this too mellow?
 

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..!! ;-)

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?

:-)

Is this too mellow?
 

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...???

:-)

Is this too mellow?
 

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.

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.

High school chorus, natch.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


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!

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

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.

Is this too mellow?
 

"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.

Is this too mellow?
 

"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.

Is this too mellow?
 

"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.

Is this too mellow?
 

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?

Is this too mellow?
 

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?

Is this too mellow?
 

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:41:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

Fine. We all do this. I played for an amateur pantomime in the local
church hall just after Christmas. They had no budget to pay me as a
musician, but I recorded and videoed it, and made a few pennies
selling copies to the performers. They'll treasure it. It's
technically OK. But there's no way it's going on my show reel :-)

Remind me again why you felt yours worth presenting?

Is this too mellow?
 

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:38:31 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


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.

You don't like ANYONE do you, Arny? :-)

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

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?

It was so long ago I don't recall.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:38:31 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


In the current context, I'd be insane to post any audio
files anywhere that you can obtain them Iain, due to
your malevolence 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.

You don't like ANYONE do you, Arny? :-)

I like almost all of the people that I work with in the real world.

I have good relationships with a number of people on more mainstream HTML
forums.

Usenet is clearly on its way out the door. The absence of moderation
probably has a lot to do with it.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:41:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

Fine. We all do this.

I'm glad that I could encourage you to be a little more realistic in what
you post, Laurence.

I played for an amateur pantomime
in the local church hall just after Christmas. They had
no budget to pay me as a musician, but I recorded and
videoed it, and made a few pennies selling copies to the
performers.

Subtract the making a few pennies part, and that's my situation. Also, the
venue is pretty horrific in terms of both lighting and sound, and the
performers are clearly in the need of lots of development. But, things are
progressing if only very slowly.

They'll treasure it. It's technically OK.
But there's no way it's going on my show reel :-)

Remind me again why you felt yours worth presenting?

It was so long ago I don't recall. Obviously, I've had more than enough
adversity theropy so that I will never do it again.

I'm actually amused by how far needy and inherently dishonest people like
Kitty and Iain will go - create their own recordings that they attribute to
me and then accuse me of incompetence when they criticize their own work.

Note that Iain can't even be bothered to show how he had the resources to do
what he claims he did. Just because its a high end console doesn't mean that
it has the equalization resources of even just middle-market DAW software
such as Audition.

Also, it is improbable that Iain actually did what he claims he did - he
probably had someone else do the actual knob twisting.

Is this too mellow?
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:41:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.
Fine. We all do this.

I'm glad that I could encourage you to be a little more realistic in what
you post, Laurence.

I played for an amateur pantomime
in the local church hall just after Christmas. They had
no budget to pay me as a musician, but I recorded and
videoed it, and made a few pennies selling copies to the
performers.

Subtract the making a few pennies part, and that's my situation. Also, the
venue is pretty horrific in terms of both lighting and sound, and the
performers are clearly in the need of lots of development. But, things are
progressing if only very slowly.

They'll treasure it. It's technically OK.
But there's no way it's going on my show reel :-)

Remind me again why you felt yours worth presenting?

It was so long ago I don't recall. Obviously, I've had more than enough
adversity theropy so that I will never do it again.

I'm actually amused by how far needy and inherently dishonest people like
Kitty and Iain will go - create their own recordings that they attribute to
me and then accuse me of incompetence when they criticize their own work.

Note that Iain can't even be bothered to show how he had the resources to do
what he claims he did. Just because its a high end console doesn't mean that
it has the equalization resources of even just middle-market DAW software
such as Audition.

Also, it is improbable that Iain actually did what he claims he did - he
probably had someone else do the actual knob twisting.




Barking....

Is this too mellow?
 

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:21:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Fine. Remind us why you posted it?

It was so long ago I don't recall.

That's OK. I expect someone else will. Maybe Goggle Groups. There
is no hiding place on the Internet. You are the sum of your postings.
You have my sympathy :-)

Is this too mellow?
 

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:31:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Remind me again why you felt yours worth presenting?

It was so long ago I don't recall. Obviously, I've had more than enough
adversity theropy so that I will never do it again.

You know Arny, you could get some respect back by simply posting
something GOOD you've recorded. There must have been SOMETHING?

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:31:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Remind me again why you felt yours worth presenting?

It was so long ago I don't recall. Obviously, I've had
more than enough adversity therapy so that I will never
do it again.

You know Arny, you could get some respect back by simply
posting something GOOD you've recorded. There must have
been SOMETHING?

Good? Good equipment, no problemo. Good performers, well not so much. Good
venue? Let's put it this way, the best places I've ever recorded in were
high school auditoriums.

As long as UKRA is dominated by trolls like Iain and Kitty, not a chance in
^%$# anything I ever record will be posted here.

Is this too mellow?
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:31:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Remind me again why you felt yours worth presenting?
It was so long ago I don't recall. Obviously, I've had
more than enough adversity therapy so that I will never
do it again.
You know Arny, you could get some respect back by simply
posting something GOOD you've recorded. There must have
been SOMETHING?

Good? Good equipment, no problemo. Good performers, well not so much. Good
venue? Let's put it this way, the best places I've ever recorded in were
high school auditoriums.


Good grief.



As long as UKRA is dominated by trolls like Iain and Kitty, not a chance in
^%$# anything I ever record will be posted here.




How pathetic....