To reverb or not?
 

In article om,
Rob wrote:
I had a look round John Lewis yesterday (having waited for the bus that
never turned up) and
they have four turntables on display - two of which USB, and I think
they were all under £100. There must be quite a demand to give up that
much shelf space, I'd have thought.

Places like CPC and Maplin are for ever trying to flog these things on
'special offer'. But as Geoff said, I'd not trust a valuable LP on one.
Nor is the cartridge etc likely to be of the very best at that price.
Maybe a convenient route for someone who no longer has a decent record
player - but if you have, all you need is a half decent sound card with
analogue inputs.

--
*A nest isn't empty until all their stuff is out of the attic

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

To reverb or not?
 

In article om, Rob
wrote:


I still prefer the PC route though, having finally found a way for it to
work easily and reliably. This with deference to Jim's idea of a
standalone CDR - didn't really get on with the NAD and Yamaha machines I
used.

FWIW I'd agree that a suitable soundcard+computer+software combination is
quite capable of making excellent recordings. And I'd agree that this then
saves the need to 'import' recordings from some other audio recorder. So
very convenient if you get something working correctly.

My worry is just that it seems to me that choosing a combination that
genuinely works well can be a minefield. Not yet found a setup that worked
correctly 'as came'.

My impression is that in the general 'PC' biz there often is no real
distinction between "I can hear something" and "works fine". Indeed, I've
seen some comments in computer mag articles that make me think the authors
are clueless about issues like resampling problems, timing problems,
clipping, etc, etc. So I have my doubts that most computer mags will help.
And I also fear that the 'advice' in audio mags can lack the required clue
about computers. (The last couple of issues of HFW have been
amusing/depressing on that score, for example.)

And if you choose the soundcard+pc+software route you may run into the snag
of needing to 'upgrade' a few years later. Particularly if driven by
playing 'keepie uppy' with Windows or Macs by other requirements.

But in the end, it is another example of personal choice, based on what the
individual prefers and has most experience with.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

To reverb or not?
 

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 03/12/2010 12:34, Keith G wrote:

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

I've got both a CD and an LP versions of Brothers In Arms and I
defy you
to tell them apart!

Only time I've not been able to tell a CD and LP of the same material
apart is when the CD is a dub of the LP.

No argument from me - a cdr is a good way of making an essentially
identical *convenience* version of an LP.

How do you guys do this?

I have a PC with a sound card and my amplifier has a ADC inside giving
spdif 16bit 44.1K out. Should I get a sound card with spdif in?


You may well find that the audio input on the PC is an analogue/digital
3.5mm jack combo.

I've tried connecting left/right analogue into the PC and recording
using
(would it be Audacity?) and to me it was complicated to get it to work
at
all and distorted when played back.


It's difficult to tell, trial and error may be the best way. What's the
amp, and which outputs are you using?



TBH, for what they cost, if you have a number of albums to do I would
suggest grabbing a USB record deck to record the albums to PC via USB
for fuss and complication-free and then use a burning programme like
Nero to create the CDR.


I had a look round John Lewis yesterday (having waited for the bus that
never turned up) and
they have four turntables on display - two of which USB, and I think they
were all under £100. There must be quite a demand to give up that much
shelf space, I'd have thought.



There seems to be no end of places you can buy these decks - especially
online. The demand must be quite surprisingly high for them, as you say.
Baby boomers digitising their 60s collections?

To reverb or not?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote


[1] A collection of late medieval songs in Latin
compiled by a Finnish cleric and first published in
1582. The music is interesting in that some of it
has no time signature, and in some parts no bar
lines or key signatures either.


Like Tuvan throat singing? :-)



OK I mentioned it, now go see this most beautiful clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M3YFK3sJ54&NR=1


Isn't that too lovely for words?

Thanks for the link. That's amazing.


The recirculatory breathing technique beggars belief and the sounds (which
vary from singer to singer) are, as you say, quite amazing.



Morning Keith,

A friend of mine,. a music teacher, just returned from
a long stay in Japan, states that this technique is taught
widely to young children, would-be woodwind players.
The teaching method involves a plastic tube, one end in
the mouth and the other in an enamel mug filled with water.
The students learn to create a strong, steady and unbroken
stream of bubbles for minutes on end.

Baritone saxophone player Harry Carney was a master,
and used to hold the last note of "Sophisticated Lady" for
several minutes.

Iain

To reverb or not?
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote

As mentioned above, when you delay the reverb, you do not bring the
delay back to the return signal loop, but use to feed the reverb,
the output of which is then brought back to the mix. The result
is the original dry sound, followed by a pause, but no repeat,
then the reverb.


What natural accoustic would such an technique simulate?

Most recording has very little to do with any natural acoustic
What I refer to above is an effect. Detatching the reverb
from the signal is quite flattering, on vocals for example.
It is one of the most common effects in recording, which
may well pass unnoticed by many listeners.

Iain

To reverb or not?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:


So, are you saying, Jim, that the bore (conical or tubular) is of no
consequence in this instance of musical instrument design?

Nope. I'm just saying what I actually said. :-) ie. that in terms of
the physics, a cone and tube are just examples of the same general
behaviour. And that in practice people choose the details to suit what
they wish to achieve.

I am unclear what you mean by "details" If they have the same "general
behaviour" how do you explain the difference in harmonic structure of
the sound produced by tubular and conical bore instruments?

Again, I guess that shows you aren't either a physicist or mechanical
engineer.

Indeed. In the same way that neither you or I have knowledge
or expertise as musical instrument builders:-)

No matter. A UKRA "lurker" has put me in touch with a
gentleman, who, before his retirement, was a woodwind
designer for Boosey and Hawkes, London at the time they
took over Buffet Crampon, Paris.

He has already told me that the difference between tubular
and cylindrical bore is, to use his words "of the essence". I
look forward to further discussion with him.

This is closely related to the subject of aural perception
which interests me greatly.

Regards
Iain

To reverb or not?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote

This is closely related to the subject of aural perception

Is it?

I'd have thought that aural perception was a matter of physiology: the
structure of the ear and the way that sounds are interpreted by the brain.

David.

To reverb or not?
 

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

I've got both a CD and an LP versions of Brothers In Arms and I defy
you
to tell them apart!

Only time I've not been able to tell a CD and LP of the same material
apart is when the CD is a dub of the LP.

No argument from me - a cdr is a good way of making an essentially
identical *convenience* version of an LP.

How do you guys do this?

I have a PC with a sound card and my amplifier has a ADC inside giving
spdif 16bit 44.1K out. Should I get a sound card with spdif in?

I've tried connecting left/right analogue into the PC and recording using
(would it be Audacity?) and to me it was complicated to get it to work at
all and distorted when played back.

Any advice?


I use a Garrard 401, SME 3009 and Sure V15/III with a
valve RIAA pre which I built for this task, and record to
a stand-alone HHB CD recorder.

Mainly I do wet transcriptions, which give excellent results.
You can buy liquids made for this purpose, but I mix my
own using the recipe given to me by an ex BBC pal.
It dries fairly quickly, so you "paint" a track at a time in
advance of the stylus.

The CD madeon the HHB is convenient as a source for
further processing such as Cedar noise reduction.


Iain

To reverb or not?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

On a recording of Piae Cantiones [1], the ensemble
complained that they were unable to perform their best
because of insufficient (natural) reverberation in the
location that had been chosen. Recording continued
the following day in a different location with a more
ideal acoustic.



Interesting. There's a track on the Hector Zazou Chansons Des Mers Froides
album where the song was supposed to be sung in a church in some remote
place but the weather was so bad they couldn't escape the howling wind
noise, so they decamped to a cellar/storeroom in their hotel which had a
suitable acoustic! There's also a track with wind noise in the
background - I don't know if it's the same one recorded in both locations
and stitched or summat.

Church locations are fraught with problems - aeroplane noise, traffic etc
We had to temporarily stop a session at Petersham Church when a huge
flock of sparrows landed outside a window:-)



[1] A collection of late medieval songs in Latin
compiled by a Finnish cleric and first published in
1582. The music is interesting in that some of it
has no time signature, and in some parts no bar
lines or key signatures either.


Like Tuvan throat singing? :-)

:-) Well not quite.

Wiki has the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piae_Cantiones




Iain

To reverb or not?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 21:17:38 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


I'm going to chuck a cat in amongst the pigeons here. I've just tried
this. I recorded some speech, then applied both delay and reverb in
Adobe Audition. No matter which order I apply them, the result is
identical. In other words, they commute.

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/listen/delayreverb.mp3

Can you hear a difference between the two versions? If so, which do you
reckon got the delay first?

I presume you have applied them literally as described in Iain's initial
pair of statements. If so, that doesn't seem to be what he meant.

If we use D = delay and R = reverb then we may also need a different
function, say, C = delay plus current input.

So although comparing DR with RD should give the same result, if we change
one of the Ds to a C they generally won't. The problem is to clarify the
language to distinguish these.



The problem seems to be that the word "delay" is used a both a noun
and a verb.

I will see if I can make up a set of examples to illustrate the
techniques, and post a link here.

Iain