[[email protected]]

bob wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:04 pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:31:22 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

snip

Only to a certain point. For instance, a symphony conductor knows how =
he/she
wants the orchestra's performance to sound from the podium, but I doub=
t
seriously if a conductor would be a great judge of how the performance=
should
sound from, say, the balcony, or even the fifth-row, center.
=20
But that's not the right question in this case. The right question in
this case is, how should the performance sound in a living room, or a
car, or over earbuds? (It occurs to me, just as an aside, that stock
iPod earbuds may now be the single most popular playback transducer in
the world.)
=20
That's a question the engineer is eminently more qualified to answer
than the musician. The question for the musician=97and it's also an
important one=97is, does this mastering convey what you wanted to
convey?

And even more than that, we were not discussing a recording of a unique=20
acoustic event, but a construct created in a recording studio. As=20
discussed here many times, re. accuracy, for studio creations made with=20
electronic and electrically amplified instruments, there really is no=20
"reference" as there was likely no discreet "event" as such.

Keith Hughes

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:43:53 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 14, 12:04=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:31:22 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

That said, it would seem that the performer should well know how the
product should sound.

Only to a certain point. For instance, a symphony conductor knows how he/=
she
wants the orchestra's performance to sound from the podium, but I doubt
seriously if a conductor would be a great judge of how the performance sh=
ould
sound from, say, the balcony, or even the fifth-row, center.

But that's not the right question in this case. The right question in
this case is, how should the performance sound in a living room, or a
car, or over earbuds? (It occurs to me, just as an aside, that stock
iPod earbuds may now be the single most popular playback transducer in
the world.)

Sigh! I understand that. But if a conductor or other musician is unlikely to
have a feel for how the music sounds in the concert venue, how likely is he
to have a feel for the same performance heard via recording or broadcast?

That's a question the engineer is eminently more qualified to answer
than the musician.

I think I pretty much said that.

The question for the musician=97and it's also an
important one=97is, does this mastering convey what you wanted to
convey?

What who wants to convey? Those who make the music or those who record and
package it?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Dick Pierce wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Dick Pierce wrote:

Mastering engineers have the good sense of not
pretending they are musicians. The music world
would be a lot better of if musicians would stop
pretending they knew anything about mastering. They
don't.

As Wilma Cozart said to Frederick Fennell at their first meeting, "You
don't tell me how to record, I won't tell you how to conduct." ;-)

That said, it would seem that the performer should well know how the
product should sound.

The auditory perspective that many musicians have is unique
and VASTLY different than what an audience member has. One
would have a difficult time denying that what the violinist
hears is not what a listner 30 feet away hears. The same is
true of pretty much any solo performer with, perhaps, the
exception of some organists playing some pipe organs. I know
from my own experience that what I have heard when playing
an organ or one of my harpsichords sound radically different
than hearing that same organ or harpsichord being played while
I sit some distance away.

Of course. But the point is that the task at hand, IMO, is to create
the sound "in the performer's head". Do we disagree on that point?

[UC]

On Oct 14, 7:09 pm, wrote:
bob wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:04 pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:31:22 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

snip





Only to a certain point. For instance, a symphony conductor knows how =
he/she
wants the orchestra's performance to sound from the podium, but I doub=
t
seriously if a conductor would be a great judge of how the performance=
should
sound from, say, the balcony, or even the fifth-row, center.
=20
But that's not the right question in this case. The right question in
this case is, how should the performance sound in a living room, or a
car, or over earbuds? (It occurs to me, just as an aside, that stock
iPod earbuds may now be the single most popular playback transducer in
the world.)
=20
That's a question the engineer is eminently more qualified to answer
than the musician. The question for the musician=97and it's also an
important one=97is, does this mastering convey what you wanted to
convey?

And even more than that, we were not discussing a recording of a unique=20
acoustic event, but a construct created in a recording studio. As=20
discussed here many times, re. accuracy, for studio creations made with=20
electronic and electrically amplified instruments, there really is no=20
"reference" as there was likely no discreet "event" as such.

Keith Hughes

Right, and in my opinion the overall sound of the original Charisma LP
was very good, and "typical" Genesis sound of the period. There was
good distribution of bass, mid-range, and treble. The ATCO LP was
noticeably inferior. In comparing the Charisma CD and the Charisma LP,
I hear no significant balance differences. The original ATCO CD seems
similar to the original US ATCO LP, kind of weak and pinched.

The ATCO remaster (which may or may not be sourced from the UK
originally; I don't really care) is noticeably brighter, exaggerating
sibilance on Collins' vocals on certain tracks. There was a kind of EQ
applied to make his voice sound strange on certain tracks, and the
remastering-induced brightness is not flattering to those tracks.

My advice is to get the original Charisma LP AND CD and compare them
to the ATCO remaster.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 15, 8:57=A0am, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Oct 14, 9:02 am, Dick Pierce wrote:
Jenn wrote:
That said, it would seem that the performer should well know how the
product should sound.

The auditory perspective that many musicians have is unique
and VASTLY different than what an audience member has.

The auditory perspective that many rock musicians have is
unique and VASTLY different that what many in the audience
have. Not a small number of rock musicians are stone deaf
due to hearing damage caused by years of exposure to
deafeing sound levels.

Add to that the fact that the vast majority of musicians
are not trained in the art and science of mastering and,

the idea that they somehow all lack the perspective to

=A0 have a legitimate opinion about the results is a stretch.

Speaking of reading comprehension, ...

Can you explain how the leap is made from "many musicians",
"many rock musicians," and "not a small number of rock
musicians" to "they somehow all." If it's a stretch you seek,
Scott, you needn't look any farther than your own post.

And "opinions?" Well, they're just like ...

Fair enough. you said many I said all. But I think you painted a very
unrealistic picture of musicians. The musician who does not listen to
music just as we do is a the extreme rarity. What musicians can you
name that don't listen to other peoples' music just as any other
person does? So did say "many." I agree that musicians like other non
pro mastering engineers lack the skills to do that job. That is a
basic truism of most skilled jobs. But the "judgement" is another
thing altogether. Sure some musicians have made some bad calls. So
have some mastering engineers! But who is there keeping tally
everytime a musician makes a good call in the studio?

Yeah, thank goodness for the handfull of great mastering engineers and
their product when it is not fettered by stone deaf dumb people in
power. Too bad for the mediocre and **** poor mastering engineers that
have botched so many recordings just beacuse of their own incompetance
and poor judgement. And sure, too bad for all the times that some old
deaf rock and roll fart got in there and had the mastering engineer
compress the life out of the recording and boost the highs to ear
bleed levels just so he could hear what was on the recording. I have
one of those records. But musicians as a group are hardly uniquely
underqualified to pass judgement on sound quality. It's urban legend
at best with no meaningful support. Now if you want to narrow the
discussion to remasters of rock music where the musicians are near
deaf and are supervising then I would agree. keep them out of the
picture, they are near deaf. I wouldn't want Brian Wilson supervising
anything in stereo. Or if you want to name a few individual conductors
sure. But let's not take a few examples and draw broad based
conclusions. Jimmy Page, Stokowski and Brain Wilson don't add up to
many.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


Solo artists never listen to other solo artists?

If you haven't noticed, I hasten to point out that musical artists generally
all sound different. It even seems that the better they are, the more they
sound different. They can play the same notes with timing and intensity
that is as close as they can make it and they still sound different.

Conductors never sit in the audience seats
during a rehearsal?

A person would have to be pretty deaf to not hear the rather gross
difference between the sound of an empty hall and a full or partially full
hall.


Rock musicians don't listen to their
recordings on stereos like everyone else?


A lot of the musicians I work with try to avoid listening to recordings of
themselves playing because its never anything like what they hear when they
play. They often fear that they will sound bad because they are so acutely
aware of their failings as musicians.

they don't
listen to other recording artists like everyone else?

It has often been observed that musicians don't listen to musical recordings
like everyone else. We hear sound, they hear music. Two different worlds.

All sounds pretty far fetched.

It sounds far fetched to me that more people aren't aware of at least some
of the items I've presented above, especially how different groups sound
during rehearsals and actual performances.

Another thing - there's an old saying in live recording - add 10 dB to the
levels during rehearsal so that you don't get clipping during the
performance, because the musicians get far more excited due to the presence
of the audience, and simply play and sing louder. YMMV.

Oh by the way, Stan Ricker
plays stand up bass and Steve Hoffman players guitar.


Guess those mastering engineers didn't get the memo about
pretending to be musicians.

Just because performing and mixing are two different worlds doesn't mean
that people can't travel between them.

Jeez, no one is saying
musicians should try to be mastering engineers but the
idea that they somehow all lack the perspective to have a
legitimate opinion about the results is a stretch.

The question is not whether their perspective is legitimate, but whether its
the one that works best for the public.

Should makeup artists try to be directors, cameramen, and film editors, or
should they stick to achieving the best possible results in their area of
specialty? Stuff like this (jack of all trades) happens in small
productions, but in general we get the best results when people specialize
and try to do their own jobs best.

[Arny Krueger]

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message


There is nothing intrinsic whatsoever about "the
band being involved" that would ensure ANY specific
result. I have heard the product of a number of bands
and conductors and performers acting as their own
mastering engineer that resulted in truly dreadful
results, and if not for the intervention of a real
live mastering engineer, would have been a total
sonic catastrophe.

Point very well taken. I do a lot of live recording and live sound work, and
work closely with both music directors and musicians, for whom I generally
have considerable respect and work well with.

Nevertheless, few working musicians know what they sound like to the
audience during a performance. They generally have no idea what they sound
like in the control room. When they hear themselves on the finished
recording, it is usually at least a bit of surprise.

There is a very good reason for this - they are rather busy elsewhere at the
time of the performance, making music. I often move freely among musicians
while they are practicing. The sound in the group is nothing at all like the
sound in the room.

Even most music directors have only a foggy notion of what their groups
sound like. What some do is stop directing or at least vastly reduce the
intimacy of their direction and the precision of their control and come out
into the empty seats and listen to what the group sounds like. Obviously,
there are at least two asymmetries and often three - the director's control
over the playing is vastly reduced and they are listening in an empty room.
The third asymmetry is that many directors actually play or sing with their
groups.

Musicians and directors may know what other groups sound like, but as we all
know - different musical groups sound different, even when they are trying
to obtain a reference sound from a well-known piece of music that "everybody
plays". Furthermore, most music isn't alike at any level - most groups play
and/or sing different arrangements of different basic works with different
instrumentation.

The overall supervisory and management function of recording, mixing, and
mastering engineers and producers is easy to underestimate. It can be
extremely significant. In fact, they may be the only people in the entire
process who are intimately familiar with what the recorded work sounds like
as a whole, both what it should sound like and what it does sound like.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:54:49 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message


Solo artists never listen to other solo artists?

If you haven't noticed, I hasten to point out that musical artists generally
all sound different. It even seems that the better they are, the more they
sound different. They can play the same notes with timing and intensity
that is as close as they can make it and they still sound different.

Of course, artists listen to other artists, but again, they listen for
different things than you and I listen for. Some even have favorites. For
instance, the singer, Harry Connick Jr., has often said that his favorite
singer was Sinatra. He says that he has every song Ol' Blue Eyes ever
recorded. Still, while the two singer's voices are similar, they're styles
are worlds apart

Conductors never sit in the audience seats
during a rehearsal?

A person would have to be pretty deaf to not hear the rather gross
difference between the sound of an empty hall and a full or partially full
hall.

To answer the question, conductors RARELY sit in the audience seats during
rehearsal. They probably do when there's a guest conductor, but other than
that, when the ensemble is playing, they're generally on the podium... er...
conducting.


Rock musicians don't listen to their
recordings on stereos like everyone else?


A lot of the musicians I work with try to avoid listening to recordings of
themselves playing because its never anything like what they hear when they
play. They often fear that they will sound bad because they are so acutely
aware of their failings as musicians.

They also fear that they will pick-up stylistic tricks from other musicians
which might tend to "dilute" their own unique "sound".

they don't
listen to other recording artists like everyone else?

It has often been observed that musicians don't listen to musical recordings
like everyone else. We hear sound, they hear music. Two different worlds.

Well put and quite true.

All sounds pretty far fetched.

It sounds far fetched to me that more people aren't aware of at least some
of the items I've presented above, especially how different groups sound
during rehearsals and actual performances.

Another thing - there's an old saying in live recording - add 10 dB to the
levels during rehearsal so that you don't get clipping during the
performance, because the musicians get far more excited due to the presence
of the audience, and simply play and sing louder. YMMV.

Oh, this is VERY true. It's not just an old saying, I've seen it happen over
and over and over again.

Oh by the way, Stan Ricker
plays stand up bass and Steve Hoffman players guitar.


Guess those mastering engineers didn't get the memo about
pretending to be musicians.

Just because performing and mixing are two different worlds doesn't mean
that people can't travel between them.

Jeez, no one is saying
musicians should try to be mastering engineers but the
idea that they somehow all lack the perspective to have a
legitimate opinion about the results is a stretch.

The question is not whether their perspective is legitimate, but whether its
the one that works best for the public.

Should makeup artists try to be directors, cameramen, and film editors, or
should they stick to achieving the best possible results in their area of
specialty? Stuff like this (jack of all trades) happens in small
productions, but in general we get the best results when people specialize
and try to do their own jobs best.

Yep.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message


There is nothing intrinsic whatsoever about "the
band being involved" that would ensure ANY specific
result. I have heard the product of a number of bands
and conductors and performers acting as their own
mastering engineer that resulted in truly dreadful
results, and if not for the intervention of a real
live mastering engineer, would have been a total
sonic catastrophe.

Point very well taken. I do a lot of live recording and live sound work,
and
work closely with both music directors and musicians, for whom I generally
have considerable respect and work well with.

Nevertheless, few working musicians know what they sound like to the
audience during a performance. They generally have no idea what they sound
like in the control room. When they hear themselves on the finished
recording, it is usually at least a bit of surprise.

There is a very good reason for this - they are rather busy elsewhere at
the
time of the performance, making music. I often move freely among musicians
while they are practicing. The sound in the group is nothing at all like
the
sound in the room.

Even most music directors have only a foggy notion of what their groups
sound like. What some do is stop directing or at least vastly reduce the
intimacy of their direction and the precision of their control and come
out
into the empty seats and listen to what the group sounds like. Obviously,
there are at least two asymmetries and often three - the director's
control
over the playing is vastly reduced and they are listening in an empty
room.
The third asymmetry is that many directors actually play or sing with
their
groups.

Musicians and directors may know what other groups sound like, but as we
all
know - different musical groups sound different, even when they are trying
to obtain a reference sound from a well-known piece of music that
"everybody
plays". Furthermore, most music isn't alike at any level - most groups
play
and/or sing different arrangements of different basic works with different
instrumentation.

The overall supervisory and management function of recording, mixing, and
mastering engineers and producers is easy to underestimate. It can be
extremely significant. In fact, they may be the only people in the entire
process who are intimately familiar with what the recorded work sounds
like
as a whole, both what it should sound like and what it does sound like.


Yes, musicians to listen to the music/performance first. But they are not
oblivious to "sound"....they just usually have a somewhat different
vocabularly to describe things. I have found listening to their
performances with professional musicians, and discussions as to "sound"
where vocabulary differences are discussed and clarified, usually leads to a
commonality of perspective. Musicians come to understand "organic" and
recordists come to understand "sparkle".

[anthony]

On 19 Oct, 04:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

...



"Dick Pierce" wrote in message


There is nothing intrinsic whatsoever about "the
band being involved" that would ensure ANY specific
result. I have heard the product of a number of bands
and conductors and performers acting as their own
mastering engineer that resulted in truly dreadful
results, and if not for the intervention of a real
live mastering engineer, would have been a total
sonic catastrophe.

Point very well taken. I do a lot of live recording and live sound work=
,
and
work closely with both music directors and musicians, for whom I genera=
lly
have considerable respect and work well with.

Nevertheless, few working musicians know what they sound like to the
audience during a performance. They generally have no idea what they so=
und
like in the control room. When they hear themselves on the finished
recording, it is usually at least a bit of surprise.

There is a very good reason for this - they are rather busy elsewhere a=
t
the
time of the performance, making music. I often move freely among musici=
ans
while they are practicing. The sound in the group is nothing at all lik=
e
the
sound in the room.

Even most music directors have only a foggy notion of what their groups
sound like. What some do is stop directing or at least vastly reduce th=
e
intimacy of their direction and the precision of their control and come
out
into the empty seats and listen to what the group sounds like. Obviousl=
y,
there are at least two asymmetries and often three - the director's
control
over the playing is vastly reduced and they are listening in an empty
room.
The third asymmetry is that many directors actually play or sing with
their
groups.

Musicians and directors may know what other groups sound like, but as w=
e
all
know - different musical groups sound different, even when they are try=
ing
to obtain a reference sound from a well-known piece of music that
"everybody
plays". Furthermore, most music isn't alike at any level - most groups
play
and/or sing different arrangements of different basic works with differ=
ent
instrumentation.

The overall supervisory and management function of recording, mixing, a=
nd
mastering engineers and producers is easy to underestimate. =A0It can b=
e
extremely significant. =A0In fact, they may be the only people in the e=
ntire
process who are intimately familiar with what the recorded work sounds
like
as a whole, both what it should sound like and what it does sound like.

Yes, musicians to listen to the =A0music/performance first. =A0But they a=
re not
oblivious to "sound"....they just usually have a somewhat different
vocabularly to describe things. =A0I have found listening to their
performances with professional musicians, and discussions as to "sound"
where vocabulary differences are discussed and clarified, usually leads t=
o a
commonality of perspective. =A0 Musicians come to understand "organic" an=
d
recordists come to understand "sparkle".

To get back to the original topic -- the sound of the remastered
Beatles set.
I've had just about every incarnation of Beatles recording, from the
original 45s, through the original Parlophone LPs, then the dreadful
1987 CD releases, and then the improved Dr Ebbett transcriptions from
the Mobile Fidelity LPs.
And I find it very puzzling that the original poster finds these new
transfers 'shrill', with no decent bass.
The most telling point of these new transfers is that absolutely no
compression has been used, nor noise-removal techniques. Well, none
at all for the mono set, and about five minutes in total content only
for the stereo set. And the most potent difference between these
transfers and the first CDs is not just the crisp articulation, but
beautifully grounded, gutsy bass. Nothing shrill at all. And I find on
balance that the mono versions of most, right up to SGt Pepper, is the
preferred version -- from Sgt Pepper on there are swings and
roundabout....
These are wonderful transfers. And I find the sound is just about as
revelatory as was the Stones' reissues on SACD, and the early Dylan
LPs in their SACD format. They do show in fact that proper discretion
by the reissue engineers is the most important factor, more important
than whether the issue is on CD or SACD.
Mind you, there is a special bloom on the best of my SACDs, especially
for Miles Davis, and the early stereo classical recordings from
Mercury and RCA, which I doubt could ever be matched on CD. But these
Beatles transfers are, at long last, the real thing. The old thrill is
back.
Anthony

[Steven Sullivan]

UC wrote:
On Oct 13, 2:06 pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
UC wrote:
The "reference" has to be the Charisma LP, made in
England.

Why?

What if all the versions are "wrong?" What if that
particular LP is uncharacteristically dull for an LP?
It comes down, then, to a matter of which wrong a
person likes.

Well one has to accept that the UK LP was reasonably close to what the
thing is supposed to sound like. After all, the band was involved at
the time. It was not 'dull' at all.

First, Genesis was not always happy with the sound they
got on record...especially the early ones.

Second, the band was involved with the remixes too. And those have been
called intolerably bright, loud, compressed, whatever, by some disgruntled
fans. Yet the band approved them.

So best be careful what authorities you cite.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The overall supervisory and management function of
recording, mixing, and mastering engineers and producers
is easy to underestimate. It can be extremely
significant. In fact, they may be the only people in
the entire process who are intimately familiar with what
the recorded work sounds like
as a whole, both what it should sound like and what it
does sound like.

Yes, musicians to listen to the music/performance first.

Not true. Musicians listen to just their part of the performance first.

But they are not oblivious to "sound"

Their primary interest is the music, which is very different and distinct
from sound as we audiophiles perceive it.

[Doug McDonald[_4_]]

Jenn wrote:


Of course. But the point is that the task at hand, IMO, is to create
the sound "in the performer's head". Do we disagree on that point?


I certainly do. The point is to recreate the sound in
the listener's ear. (Barring special effects like cannons in the 1812
Overture.)

Doug McDonald

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:47:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The overall supervisory and management function of
recording, mixing, and mastering engineers and producers
is easy to underestimate. It can be extremely
significant. In fact, they may be the only people in
the entire process who are intimately familiar with what
the recorded work sounds like
as a whole, both what it should sound like and what it
does sound like.

Yes, musicians to listen to the music/performance first.

Not true. Musicians listen to just their part of the performance first.

But they are not oblivious to "sound"

Their primary interest is the music, which is very different and distinct
from sound as we audiophiles perceive it.




I think that any "audio type" who has spent any time at all around musicians
(like, say, recording them) would have noticed what Arny and I have noticed.
I.E., what he says above is not merely a generalization, but is, absolutely
true.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 18, 6:54=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



Solo artists never listen to other solo artists?

If you haven't noticed, I hasten to point out that musical artists genera=
lly
all sound different. It even seems that the better they are, the more the=
y
sound different. =A0They can play the same notes with timing and intensit=
y
that is as close as they can make it and they still sound different.

Stylistically yes. But there is nothing acoustically unique about
them. When I was in New Orleans on a flim last year the music joints
were widely populated by fellow musicians. I'm pretty sure those
musicians were hearing the same sounds I was hearing. I'm confident
that despite some protests on this forum musicians actually do have a
very good idea of what other musicians sound like from an audience
perspective.I actually do know a few musicians in this world. I they
are all avid concert goers. I have only heard *of* one musician who
actively avoids listening to other artists' work. She is a famous
recluse.



Conductors never sit in the audience seats
during a rehearsal?

A person would have to be pretty deaf to not hear the rather gross
difference between the sound of an empty hall and a full or partially ful=
l
hall.


Reletviely small compared to the difference one hears from the podium.
It's a matter of perspective. Heck no two seats in any concert hall
offer exactly the same sound. No two concert halls sound exactly the
same. We are talking about a broad shpere of sounds here. And I think
the idea that conductors are completely outside that sphere is both
absurd and down right insulting to them.



Rock musicians don't listen to their
recordings on stereos like everyone else?

A lot of the musicians I work with try to avoid listening to recordings o=
f
themselves playing because its never anything like what they hear when th=
ey
play. They often fear that they will sound bad because they are so acutel=
y
aware of their failings as musicians.

But you don't work with rock musicians of any significance. I suspect
you don't pay to much attention to what they say about their own music
either. Is it really your position that musicians aren't listening to
their work while recording in studio because they fear they suck? Are
you suggesting that they don't listen to and evaluate their final
product before going to market for the same fear? I am a little bit
shocked by this assertion. One need look no further than any garden
variety documentary like the "behind the music" series to see how
completely wrong this assertion is.

they don't
listen to other recording artists like everyone else?

It has often been observed that musicians don't listen to musical recordi=
ngs
like everyone else. We hear sound, they hear music. Two different worlds.

It has often been observed that there is more police and ER activity
during a full moon. "Observed" by police and ER workers no less. And
yet studies show it is pure urban legend. that is basically my point.
These anecdotal observations are meaningless. By the way, I hear music
when I listen to music. Maybe you just hear sound.



All sounds pretty far fetched.

It sounds far fetched to me that more people aren't aware of at least som=
e
of the items I've presented above, especially how different groups sound
during rehearsals and actual performances.

Another thing - there's an old saying in live recording - add 10 dB to th=
e
levels during rehearsal so that you don't get clipping during the
performance, because the musicians get far more excited due to the presen=
ce
of the audience, and simply play and sing louder. YMMV.


Yeah and make sure there are no musicians in the audience. We don't
want them hearing what it sounds like.



Oh by the way, Stan Ricker
plays stand up bass and Steve Hoffman players guitar.
Guess those mastering engineers didn't get the memo about
pretending to be musicians.

Just because performing and mixing are two different worlds doesn't mean
that people can't travel between them.

They are mastering engineers. They don't mix. But I agree. You might
want to tell Dick that since it was his assertion that mastering
engineers don't pretend to be musicians.



=A0Jeez, no one is saying
musicians should try to be mastering engineers but the
idea that they somehow all lack the perspective to have a
legitimate opinion about the results is a stretch.

The question is not whether their perspective is legitimate, but whether =
its
the one that works best for the public.

Not sure where that question gets us. Oh yes I am. It gets us to stuff
like Hannah Montana. Look at her sales. Clearly her out put is
"working" for the public.



Should makeup artists try to be directors, cameramen, and film editors, o=
r
should they stick to achieving the best possible results in their area of
specialty? =A0 Stuff like this (jack of all trades) happens in small
productions, but in general we get the best results when people specializ=
e
and try to do their own jobs best.

Ever see a Ron Howard movie? Should he have stuck to acting?

People should do what their passion dictates to them. IME
specialization often leads to a disconnect between the workers and the
product. Especially in artistic endeavours. Many artisans actually
befefit greatly from having a wide range of knowledge and experience
that extends beyond their specific area of expertise. I just had lunch
with an old friend of mine, Joe Rohde who is a fairly prominant
Imagineer over at Disney. He was going on and on about how important a
broad base is for any artist and how limited specialists are in their
utility when they lack such a base. He was talking about their need to
study history, antrhopology, psychology etc. Yeah, the last thing I
want is colaberations between specialists that live in a vacuum of
complete disconnect with other disciplines.

[UC]

On Oct 19, 8:58 am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
UC wrote:
On Oct 13, 2:06 pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
UC wrote:
The "reference" has to be the Charisma LP, made in
England.

Why?

What if all the versions are "wrong?" What if that
particular LP is uncharacteristically dull for an LP?
It comes down, then, to a matter of which wrong a
person likes.
Well one has to accept that the UK LP was reasonably close to what the
thing is supposed to sound like. After all, the band was involved at
the time. It was not 'dull' at all.

First, Genesis was not always happy with the sound they
got on record...especially the early ones.

Well TOTT is not an "early" one (it was released in 1976).

Second, the band was involved with the remixes too. And those have been
called intolerably bright, loud, compressed, whatever, by some disgruntled
fans. Yet the band approved them.

Maybe they're DEAF.

So best be careful what authorities you cite.

The band in 1976, not the band in 1999.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Doug McDonald wrote:

Jenn wrote:


Of course. But the point is that the task at hand, IMO, is to create
the sound "in the performer's head". Do we disagree on that point?


I certainly do. The point is to recreate the sound in
the listener's ear.

Which (theoretical) listener? In what (usually non-existent) seat?

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Oct 18, 6:54=A0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



Solo artists never listen to other solo artists?

If you haven't noticed, I hasten to point out that
musical artists generally all sound different. It even
seems that the better they are, the more they sound
different.They can play the same notes with timing
and intensity that is as close as they can make it and
they still sound different.

Stylistically yes. But there is nothing acoustically
unique about them.

What does acoustically unique mean?


When I was in New Orleans on a flim
last year the music joints were widely populated by
fellow musicians.

I didn't know that you were a professional musician.

I'm pretty sure those musicians were
hearing the same sounds I was hearing.

I doubt it, given that it is impossible for two people to occupy the same
space, and small displacements can cause large differences.

Also, the only evidence presented is your supposition. Perhaps you should
cut to the chase and say that you suppose that you are right and that I am
wrong and that is that. Then we can dispense with the trouble of trying to
discuss the matter in an intelligent way...

I'm confident that
despite some protests on this forum musicians actually do
have a very good idea of what other musicians sound like
from an audience perspective

Again, the only evidence presented here is your supposition. Your comments
have thus far missed the point that the musican's can't possibly hear
themselves play from the perspective of the audience because they can't be
in two places at the same time.

I actually do know a few musicians in this world.

That would be a truism. I don't know of anybody who doesn't know a few
musicians. If you haven't noticed, there are a lot of musicians in the
world.

I (think) they are all avid concert goers.

Since you have admitted that you only know a few musicians and you are again
making a supposition, it would be illogical to draw any conclusions from
this statement.

I have only heard *of* one musician who actively
avoids listening to other artists' work. She is a famous
recluse.

Again, I see no evidence that relates to the point that I made.

Conductors never sit in the audience seats
during a rehearsal?

A person would have to be pretty deaf to not hear the
rather gross difference between the sound of an empty
hall and a full or partially ful= l hall.

Reletively small compared to the difference one hears
from the podium.

Again, I see no evidence that relates to the point that I made.

It's a matter of perspective. Heck no
two seats in any concert hall offer exactly the same
sound. No two concert halls sound exactly the same. We
are talking about a broad shpere of sounds here. And I
think the idea that conductors are completely outside
that sphere is both absurd and down right insulting to
them.

Again, I see no reliable hard evidence that relates to the point that I
made.

Rock musicians don't listen to their
recordings on stereos like everyone else?

A lot of the musicians I work with try to avoid
listening to recordings o f themselves playing because
its never anything like what they hear when they play.
They often fear that they will sound bad because they
are so acutely aware of their failings as musicians.

But you don't work with rock musicians of any
significance.

That would be another supposition on your part. Furthermore, I see no reason
why rock musicans would be that different from musicans who play other
genres of music. In fact most of the musicans I work with are far more
flexible than that. They can play music from a number of genres and even
switch genre in the middle of a set. IME this is not unusual.


I suspect you don't pay to much attention
to what they say about their own music either.


That's actually more than a little insulting, and again another supposition
on your part.

Is it
really your position that musicians aren't listening to
their work while recording in studio because they fear
they suck?

It is my position that musicans don't listen to their playing as recorded
while it is being recorded because they are busy making the music that is
being recorded. After the music is recorded they often leave right away
because they have other things to do. Later on they may or may not listen to
recordings that they participated in, depending on their interest and the
time avaialble.


Are you suggesting that they don't listen to
and evaluate their final product before going to market
for the same fear?

This is IME true at least part of the time. Its not like they haven't heard
the music before, just in a different form.

I am a little bit shocked by this assertion.

It is not an assertion, it is an empirical fact.


One need look no further than any garden
variety documentary like the "behind the music" series to
see how completely wrong this assertion is.

Who says that documentaries are always true and accurate representations of
how things are?

they don't
listen to other recording artists like everyone else?

It has often been observed that musicians don't listen
to musical recordings like everyone else. We hear
sound, they hear music. Two different worlds.

It has often been observed that there is more police and
ER activity during a full moon. "Observed" by police and
ER workers no less. And yet studies show it is pure urban
legend. that is basically my point.

That would be yet another unfounded supposition on your part.

These anecdotal
observations are meaningless.

If anecdotal observations are meaningless, then why have you based your
entire response on something that is even less reliable - your personal
suppositions?

By the way, I hear music when I listen to music. Maybe you just hear
sound.

I hear both, depending on my interest and needs at the moment.

All sounds pretty far fetched.

It sounds far fetched to me that more people aren't
aware of at least som e of the items I've presented
above, especially how different groups sound during
rehearsals and actual performances.

Another thing - there's an old saying in live recording
- add 10 dB to th= e levels during rehearsal so that you
don't get clipping during the performance, because the
musicians get far more excited due to the presen= ce of
the audience, and simply play and sing louder. YMMV.

Yeah and make sure there are no musicians in the
audience. We don't want them hearing what it sounds like.


I don't see even the slightest basis for this comment. Yet another
supposition, or perhaps sarcasm which is almost never factual?


Oh by the way, Stan Ricker
plays stand up bass and Steve Hoffman players guitar.
Guess those mastering engineers didn't get the memo
about pretending to be musicians.

Just because performing and mixing are two different
worlds doesn't mean that people can't travel between
them.

They are mastering engineers. They don't mix.

That seems to disagree with more authoritative statements about Stan
Ricker's experiences such as:

http://www.cardas.com/content.php?ar...icker+P art+3

"Stan Ricker has a unique combination of knowledge of music, recording, and
mastering"

Steve Hoffman has also made many comments about how certain recordings were
mixed that would only be relevant if he had some involvement in that part of
the process.

It appears that your suppositons are again baseless and perhaps even false.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 20, 6:07=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Oct 18, 6:54=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message


Solo artists never listen to other solo artists?
If you haven't noticed, I hasten to point out that
musical artists generally all sound different. It even
seems that the better they are, the more they sound
different.They can play the same notes with timing
and intensity that is as close as they can make it and
they still sound different.
Stylistically yes. But there is nothing acoustically
unique about them.

What does acoustically unique mean?



It means what it says.



When I was in New Orleans on a flim
last year the music joints were widely populated by
fellow musicians.

I didn't know that you were a professional musician.


I'm not. I was speaking of the fellow musicians of the musicians
playing live at the various venues.



I'm pretty sure those musicians were
hearing the same sounds I was hearing.

I doubt it, given that it is impossible for two people to occupy the same
space, and small displacements can cause large differences.


They were still the same sounds. We weren't given individual P.A.
systems. But really, if you don't get the point what is the point in
talking to you? Willful obfuscation gets us nowhere.



Also, the only evidence presented is your supposition. Perhaps you should
cut to the chase and say that you suppose that you are right and that I a=
m
wrong and that is that. Then we can dispense with the trouble of trying t=
o
discuss the matter in an intelligent way...


Well no, I actually do offer references that one could check if they
were inclinded to do so. I will give you links this time so you have
no excuse.





=A0I'm confident that
despite some protests on this forum musicians actually do
have a very good idea of what other musicians sound like
from an audience perspective

Again, the only evidence presented here is your supposition. Your comment=
s
have thus far missed the point that the musican's can't possibly hear
themselves play from the perspective of the audience because they can't b=
e
in two places at the same time.



It does not miss the point. My point is the repeated act of hearing
other musicians suffices in giving a musician perspective on their own
sound.



I actually do know a few musicians in this world.

That would be a truism. I don't know of anybody who doesn't know a few
musicians. If you haven't noticed, there are a lot of musicians in the
world.


It would be a truism if you took it literally rather than as it was
intended. It's what we call an understantement. Sorry if that was lost
on you. I actually know more than "a few."



they are all avid concert goers.

Since you have admitted that you only know a few musicians and you are ag=
ain
making a supposition, it would be illogical to draw any conclusions from
this statement.


see above for the explanation on what was meant by "a few."



I have only heard *of* one musician who actively
avoids listening to other artists' work. She is a famous
recluse.

Again, I see no evidence that relates to the point that I made.

OK so you don't understnad the argument. I will concede that point.
But your failure to understand the argument does not make the point go
away. The point being musicians actually do listen to other musicians
by and large and that does give them perspective on their own sound.



Conductors never sit in the audience seats
during a rehearsal?

A person would have to be pretty deaf to not hear the
rather gross difference between the sound of an empty
hall and a full or partially ful=3D l hall.
Reletively small compared to the difference one hears
from the podium.

Again, I see no evidence that relates to the point that I made.


Really? Are you seriously unaware of the huge difference between the
sound from the podium as compared to anywhere in the audience? I guess
we will have to take that into consideration when pondering your
opinions on the subject.



It's a matter of perspective. Heck no
two seats in any concert hall offer exactly the same
sound. No two concert halls sound exactly the same. We
are talking about a broad shpere of sounds here. And I
think the idea that conductors are completely outside
that sphere is both absurd and down right insulting to
them.

Again, I see no reliable hard evidence that relates to the point that I
made.


It appears that you see what you want to see.



Rock musicians don't listen to their
recordings on stereos like everyone else?
A lot of the musicians I work with try to avoid
listening to recordings o f themselves playing because
its never anything like what they hear when they play.
They often fear that they will sound bad because they
are so acutely aware of their failings as musicians.
But you don't work with rock musicians of any
significance.

That would be another supposition on your part. Furthermore, I see no rea=
son
why rock musicans would be that different from musicans who play other
genres of music. In fact most of the musicans I work with are far more
flexible than that. They can play music from a number of genres and even
switch genre in the middle of a set. IME this is not unusual.


What does that have to do with my assertion and the evidence I pointed
you towards that supports that assertion?




I suspect you don't pay to much attention
to what they say about their own music either.

That's actually more than a little insulting, and again another suppositi=
on
on your part.


It's actually a very logical deduction based on your grossly
misinformed belief that rock musicians don't listen to themselves or
other rock musicians out of fear.



Is it
really your position that musicians aren't listening to
their work while recording in studio because they fear
they suck?

It is my position that musicans don't listen to their playing as recorded
while it is being recorded because they are busy making the music that is
being recorded. =A0After the music is recorded they often leave right awa=
y
because they have other things to do. Later on they may or may not listen=
to
recordings that they participated in, depending on their interest and the
time avaialble.

Then your position is profoundly uninformed and clearly wrong. Facts
is facts. again I would point you to that terrific series of
documentaries on the making of many classic rock albums.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_The_Music
You will find many a scene of musicians recording with headphones or
monitors that allow them to hear themsleves playing against what has
already been layed down. Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find any
vocalist that will record without being able to clearly hear
themselves while they record. Arny, we are talking about real pro rock
artists here. Musicians that spend an enormous amount of time and
money in the studio trying to get it just right. They *are* listening
to what they are doing.



=A0Are you suggesting that they don't listen to
and evaluate their final product before going to market
for the same fear?

This is IME true at least part of the time. Its not like they haven't hea=
rd
the music before, just in a different form.


What is your experience?



I am a little bit shocked by this assertion.

It is not an assertion, it is an empirical fact.


wrong. It is, as you love to say, a supposition that is not supported
by any facts presented here by you. It's also plainly eroneous. And
you base it on "your expereience?" That being what? What commercial
rock recordings have you been an active participant in?



One need look no further than any garden
variety documentary like the "behind the music" series to
see how completely wrong this assertion is.

Who says that documentaries are always true and accurate representations =
of
how things are?


In this case I do. But, unlike you, I have actually seen them and know
what it is I am referencing. Things like behind the scene footage.
interviews with the artistst with obviously unedited questions with
direct answers.... clear and irrefutable stuff like that. but if you
want to claim that the makers of this series has conspired to
undermind your argument in this thread feel free to make that
assertion. but remember this was just an example. I can point you to a
mountain of "evidence" on the subject. I happen to be a fan and I
have, over the years, looked into the making of my favorite music.
This may come as a surprise to you but these guys actually talk
extensively about the making of their music. Something I have found
interesting and have payed attention to.





they don't
listen to other recording artists like everyone else?

It has often been observed that musicians don't listen
to musical recordings like everyone else. We hear
sound, they hear music. Two different worlds.
It has often been observed that there is more police and
ER activity during a full moon. "Observed" by police and
ER workers no less. And yet studies show it is pure urban
legend. that is basically my point.

That would be yet another unfounded supposition on your part.

No. It's actually well documented.
http://tafkac.org/medical/full_moon_fun.html



These anecdotal
observations are meaningless.

If anecdotal observations are meaningless, then why have you based your
entire response on something that is even less reliable - your personal
suppositions?


I haven't. That would only describe your assertions here.
I have offered you some references that support my assertions. I can
bring agreat deal more if needed.


By the way, I hear music when I listen to music. Maybe you just hear
sound.

I hear both, depending on my interest and needs at the moment.


I was only going by what you said.



All sounds pretty far fetched.
It sounds far fetched to me that more people aren't
aware of at least som e of the items I've presented
above, especially how different groups sound during
rehearsals and actual performances.
Another thing - there's an old saying in live recording
- add 10 dB to th=3D e levels during rehearsal so that you
don't get clipping during the performance, because the
musicians get far more excited due to the presen=3D ce of
the audience, and simply play and sing louder. YMMV.
Yeah and make sure there are no musicians in the
audience. We don't want them hearing what it sounds like.

I don't see even the slightest basis for this comment. Yet another
supposition, or perhaps sarcasm which is almost never factual?


no Arny it was a joke relating to the absurdity of the apparently
widely held belief on RAHE that musicians lack the experience with
other musicians playing live to have any meaningful perspective on how
they sound when they play live. I hate explaining jokes.





Oh by the way, Stan Ricker
plays stand up bass and Steve Hoffman players guitar.
Guess those mastering engineers didn't get the memo
about pretending to be musicians.

Just because performing and mixing are two different
worlds doesn't mean that people can't travel between
them.
They are mastering engineers. They don't mix.

That seems to disagree with more authoritative statements about Stan
Ricker's experiences such as:

http://www.cardas.com/content.php?ar...D16&pagest r=
....

"Stan Ricker has a unique combination of knowledge of music, recording, a=
nd
mastering"


It doesn't disgaree at all. Yes he does have "knowledge" which speaks
to my point about specialists needing a broad base to be better at
what they do. But why did you stop reading there? It goes on to say...

"Stan Ricker has a unique combination of knowledge of music,
recording, and mastering, and is one of the few true renaissance men
in audio today. Stan is a veteran LP mastering engineer who is
renowned for his development of the half-speed mastering process and
his leading role in the development of the 200g UHQR (Ultra High
Quality Recording). Stan cut many highly regarded LPs for Mobile
Fidelity Sound Lab, Crystal Clear, Telarc, Delos, Reference
Recordings, Windham Hill, Stereophile, and roughly a dozen other
labels, including recent work for Analogue Productions and AcousTech
Mastering. Stan is particularly well-known to audiophiles such as
myself who were actively purchasing high-quality LPs during the
mid-70's to mid-80's. Stan's love and knowledge of music has stood him
in good stead during his mastering career. His long experience as both
a band and orchestra conductor has trained him to hear ensemble and
timbral balance, which has proven to be exceptionally useful in
achieving mastered products of the highest caliber"

What about that clear statement on Stan's career would lead you to
believe he is actually involved in mixing? what isn't clear about the
fact that he is a mastering engineer by trade?



Steve Hoffman has also made many comments about how certain recordings we=
re
mixed that would only be relevant if he had some involvement in that part=
of
the process.


No. he does his homework. That is just one of the reasons he is one of
the best. Again this points to the need of a broad base for a
specialist to excel. You can read about his work on his website.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/



It appears that your suppositons are again baseless and perhaps even fals=
e.

It would only appear so to the willfully uninformed. I have given you
several references now it's on you to do your homework.


[ The moderators would appreciate it if everyone involved in this
thread were to pause before tapping the Send button and review
their posts for politeness. -- dsr ]

[Andrew Barss]

anthony wrote:

: To get back to the original topic -- the sound of the remastered
: Beatles set.


Very nice review -- thanks.

Question: I love the Beatles, but mostly Sgt. Pepper onwards. I've heard
very short samples from the mono and stereo Sgt. Pepper, and liked the
mono version enough -- played on speakers -- that I'm tempted to get the
box set for just that (I prefer the stereo version, or the clips I've
heard, on headphones). How would you compare the two versions? And are
any of the other, later mono versions worth getting? (I'm aware that the
mono versions are only available as a boxed set, hence the question -- I
wouldn't hesitate to buy single CDs in mono).

-- Andy Barss

[ Excessive quotation snipped -- dsr ]

--
ooooooooooooooooo oooooo
Andy Barss
Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona
Communications 114A, 626-3284
ooooooooooooooooo oooooo

[gofab.com]

On 8 Oct 2009 22:26:51 GMT, in article , Jenn
stated:

In article ,
UC wrote:

Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!

Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!

Mmmm...I very much disagree. I think that these are easily the best
sounding CD Beatles releases.


Jenn, I agree that the remasters are a significant improvement over the
original. The extent of the improvement varies with the album involved. If I had
been doing the project, I think I would have pushed a bit more in a few areas.
Perhaps a bit more tape hiss reduction. I might have made some slightly
different decisions regarding dynamics in some places. Overall, compared to what
could have been done, this was a tasteful and rather subtle exercise. On some
passages, the work is almost totally unobtrusive (save for perhaps some
additional gain). On others, it can be quite noticeable, but never jarring. An
example would be "Long Long Long", where the character of the original is most
definitely retained, and yet there are some very satisfying improvements (the
drums really punch in very dynamically; much more delicacy and air around the
acoustic guitar sounds and, on the whole, much less of an impression of "mud").

Shrill? Hardly. Lacking bass? Not on my system. Worse than the original masters?
Hard to understand that claim. I think the claim you could lay at their feet was
that perhaps there were a bit too "purist" in their approach, although I can
understand why they took that tack. Having heard suggestions of what was
possible with a bit of remixing from the Love CD, it is tantalizing to think
what a tasteful mix engineer could do with some of the material, particularly
the later material where there was less bouncing and more track isolation of
individual parts. But I can't fault what they did here as their is no lodestar
besides the original mix decisions that were made, at least on the mono
recordings, with the active participation of the Beatles.

I agree that there are other examples where remastering has made a very
significant difference. I agree on the Stones releases from a few years back.
Perhaps the most satisfying pop remastering project I've heard in recent years
was the Led Zeppelin "Mothership" collection. They did an extraordinary job on
that. The remastered "All Things Must Pass" was also sterling.