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 :-)

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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!

"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

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....

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...

:-)