Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Engineering examples?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 11:38:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Seems like all the sound reinforcement books from Yamaha on down all
recommend listening to music that sounds like what you are shooting for
before, during and after mixing sessions. As a beginner this sounds great to
me, but I was wanting some suggestions for albums to listen to, where maybe
the overall mix is good, and then also some where the vocals, the drums,
etc. sound really good.

I know a lot of people have said that Steely Dan's stuff is like this but as
I am only 28 they are a bit before my time, and I was hoping to hear
examples of something that I am more familiar with musically. My first
exposure to them was when I was 10 or so, with the Royal Scam album, which I
love (but I know long time Steely Dan fans are probably rolling their eyes
at that one).

Personally, some of my favorite "sounding" music is Peter Gabriel, the "So"
album in particular. Are my ears and personal biases (PG is my most
formative musical influence) lying to me that this album is superbly
engineered? Is Daniel Lanois' stuff highly regarded in general?

TIA...

-Ben

More about : engineering examples

Anonymous
December 15, 2004 12:23:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ben Hanson" <transparency_76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41c0423b$1@mustang.speedfactory.net
> Seems like all the sound reinforcement books from Yamaha on down all
> recommend listening to music that sounds like what you are shooting
> for before, during and after mixing sessions.

For the topic at hand mixing, let me recommend Bobby Oswinski's book about
mixing - the mixing engineers handbook if you haven't already been there,
and done that.

> As a beginner this
> sounds great to me, but I was wanting some suggestions for albums to
> listen to, where maybe the overall mix is good, and then also some
> where the vocals, the drums, etc. sound really good.

The problem with this is the dominant effect of personal taste.

IME there isn't just one good mix in every set of tracks.

> I know a lot of people have said that Steely Dan's stuff is like this
> but as I am only 28 they are a bit before my time, and I was hoping
> to hear examples of something that I am more familiar with musically.

Well, Steely Dan has what I think of as a nice clear sound. Appropriate for
what they are playing, but not appropriate for *everything*.

> Personally, some of my favorite "sounding" music is Peter Gabriel,
> the "So" album in particular. Are my ears and personal biases (PG is
> my most formative musical influence) lying to me that this album is
> superbly engineered?

There's a pretty good chance that any album by any *name* group is "superbly
engineered" in someone's mind. That someone might be a record company
execuitive, or it might be a zillion teenagers. It might even be someone
whose tastes you agree with. But does that make it right?
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 12:41:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

reqluq wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:xdmdnVINxrhN1V3cRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> >>
> > There's a pretty good chance that any album by any *name* group is
> > "superbly engineered" in someone's mind. That someone might be a
record
> > company execuitive, or it might be a zillion teenagers. It might
even be
> > someone whose tastes you agree with. But does that make it right?
>
> Hmm...so what does make it *right*?In an earlier post I
started,someone took
> a bit of exception to me using music on the radio as a reference,then
went
> on to say that maybe the *commercially* mastered cd's aren't a good
> reference either,so what do we use?hmm?the radio is what folks listen
to and
> groove to everday,cd's are what they listen to in their cars and
discos,this
> is what they are used to,and seem to be happy buying...so?
> How do we know then?
> req

I seem to remember reading somewhere about a world-famous mastering
engineer being asked for his opinion on the 'best-mixed' song he's ever
heard. He said it was Squeeze - "Tempted" or "Black Coffee in Bed" , I
can't remember which. Of recent releases, I'd recommend
"Californication" by the Chili Peppers. All of "Californication" is in
mono, IIRC.

I don't like the Gabriel records much technically, either. Or early U2,
tho 'Vertigo' is excellent, IMO. Lanois/Eno seem more concerned with
artistic quality, flow and arrangement than technical matters. But I
love them for that.

Remember tho, songwriting and performance are trump cards. Arrangement
is important, too. All are more important than technical sound.
Mikey Wozniak
Nova Music Productions
this sig is haiku
Mikey Wozniak
Related resources
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 1:15:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

While it's more geared towards mastering practices:

http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=full...

Ben Hanson wrote:
> Seems like all the sound reinforcement books from Yamaha on down all
> recommend listening to music that sounds like what you are shooting
for
> before, during and after mixing sessions. As a beginner this sounds
great to
> me, but I was wanting some suggestions for albums to listen to, where
maybe
> the overall mix is good, and then also some where the vocals, the
drums,
> etc. sound really good.
>
> I know a lot of people have said that Steely Dan's stuff is like this
but as
> I am only 28 they are a bit before my time, and I was hoping to hear
> examples of something that I am more familiar with musically. My
first
> exposure to them was when I was 10 or so, with the Royal Scam album,
which I
> love (but I know long time Steely Dan fans are probably rolling their
eyes
> at that one).
>
> Personally, some of my favorite "sounding" music is Peter Gabriel,
the "So"
> album in particular. Are my ears and personal biases (PG is my most
> formative musical influence) lying to me that this album is superbly
> engineered? Is Daniel Lanois' stuff highly regarded in general?
>
> TIA...
>
> -Ben
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 3:20:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:xdmdnVINxrhN1V3cRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>>
> There's a pretty good chance that any album by any *name* group is
> "superbly engineered" in someone's mind. That someone might be a record
> company execuitive, or it might be a zillion teenagers. It might even be
> someone whose tastes you agree with. But does that make it right?

Hmm...so what does make it *right*?In an earlier post I started,someone took
a bit of exception to me using music on the radio as a reference,then went
on to say that maybe the *commercially* mastered cd's aren't a good
reference either,so what do we use?hmm?the radio is what folks listen to and
groove to everday,cd's are what they listen to in their cars and discos,this
is what they are used to,and seem to be happy buying...so?
How do we know then?
req
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 4:25:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

reqluq <scrednoapame@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>news:xdmdnVINxrhN1V3cRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>>>
>> There's a pretty good chance that any album by any *name* group is
>> "superbly engineered" in someone's mind. That someone might be a record
>> company execuitive, or it might be a zillion teenagers. It might even be
>> someone whose tastes you agree with. But does that make it right?
>
>Hmm...so what does make it *right*?In an earlier post I started,someone took
>a bit of exception to me using music on the radio as a reference,then went
>on to say that maybe the *commercially* mastered cd's aren't a good
>reference either,so what do we use?hmm?the radio is what folks listen to and
>groove to everday,cd's are what they listen to in their cars and discos,this
>is what they are used to,and seem to be happy buying...so?

So, pick something that sounds good.

Commercially mastered CDs can sound good, and many of them do. There is a
tremendous push toward overcompression and destruction of dynamics, but
not everything out there is squashed to hell and back. Many of the major
releases have been destroyed, but there are plenty of other CDs out there.

>How do we know then?

From my standpoint, the only way you can really know how things are supposed
to sound is by listening to live acoustic music. In that world, you at least
have a standard of comparison for realism.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 4:25:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 15 Dec 2004 13:25:40 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>From my standpoint, the only way you can really know how things are supposed
>to sound is by listening to live acoustic music. In that world, you at least
>have a standard of comparison for realism. <snip>

That's the problem...MOST people today don't know what "music" sounds
like. I blame it squarely on the "ghetto/thug" ethos that pervades
popular music today...all that noise, all that rattling and banging
from mindlessly repeated tracks...it's not music, it's mechanical
noise put together by talentless wannabes. The decline of musical
education in US public education started in the 1970s is mostly to
blame for a lot of this; else, this kind of garbage wouldn't have
grabbed the market share it has.

dB
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 8:16:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ben Hanson" <transparency_76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41c0423b$1@mustang.speedfactory.net...

> Personally, some of my favorite "sounding" music is Peter Gabriel, the
"So"
> album in particular. Are my ears and personal biases (PG is my most
> formative musical influence) lying to me that this album is superbly
> engineered? Is Daniel Lanois' stuff highly regarded in general?

During the nineties a lot of folks seemed to think he was God, or at least
an archangel. Personally, I never could stand his stuff -- it all has that
characteristic Lanois murky whatever-it-is, and after a while (like about
three minutes) I find it cloying. Emmylou Harris records and Robbie
Robertson records aren't really supposed to sound alike.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 9:20:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ben Hanson" <transparency_76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41c0423b$1@mustang.speedfactory.net...

> Personally, some of my favorite "sounding" music is Peter Gabriel, the
"So"

If it sounds good to you, go for it. 'So' sounds pretty good to me, too.

jb
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 12:02:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> reference to famous mix engineer and Squeeze

I think that was Bob Clearmountain referring to his mix on the Squeeze
album "Play". I remember reading the article and checking the CD
because it's a favorite of mine.

Like everyone says, it's so much a matter of taste and generation. But,
from a quick scan of my CD collection, here are a few engineers whose
work I enjoy: Clearmountain, Tchad Blake, Ethan Johns, Brendan O'Brien.
Google any of these guys with the words "discography" and "engineer"
and you'll find a list of their works.

Cheers,
Dave
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 7:09:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cppvj4$rlj$1@panix2.panix.com...
> reqluq <scrednoapame@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>news:xdmdnVINxrhN1V3cRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>> There's a pretty good chance that any album by any *name* group is
>>> "superbly engineered" in someone's mind. That someone might be a record
>>> company execuitive, or it might be a zillion teenagers. It might even
>>> be
>>> someone whose tastes you agree with. But does that make it right?
>>
>>Hmm...so what does make it *right*?In an earlier post I started,someone
>>took
>>a bit of exception to me using music on the radio as a reference,then went
>>on to say that maybe the *commercially* mastered cd's aren't a good
>>reference either,so what do we use?hmm?the radio is what folks listen to
>>and
>>groove to everday,cd's are what they listen to in their cars and
>>discos,this
>>is what they are used to,and seem to be happy buying...so?
>
> So, pick something that sounds good.

That's the prob scott..the radio sounds good :-) but I think I know what
you mean then again I don't..sounds good where?in my car in my studio?how do
we know really what's *good*?and that it's not being coloured by the
surroundings?who's word do we take for it?
>
> Commercially mastered CDs can sound good, and many of them do. There is a
> tremendous push toward overcompression and destruction of dynamics, but
> not everything out there is squashed to hell and back. Many of the major
> releases have been destroyed, but there are plenty of other CDs out there.
>
>>How do we know then?
>
> From my standpoint, the only way you can really know how things are
> supposed
> to sound is by listening to live acoustic music. In that world, you at
> least
> have a standard of comparison for realism.
> --scott

really?what about the setting?the acoustics etc..I heard a latin band
playing in a mall the other day live,I'm sure live instruments are not
supposed to sound like that..a wash of sound..
maybe one needs to stick their ear as close to the kick as possible while
blocking the other ear to hear *really* what it sounds like..maybe I'm
making this to complicated ...
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 12:38:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <10s2k78hhrqo787@corp.supernews.com> scrednoapame@hotmail.com writes:

> > So, pick something that sounds good.
>
> That's the prob scott..the radio sounds good :-)

Oh. Now we can better understand your problem. To most of us, radio
sounds worse than the real thing, even the real CD.

> really?what about the setting?the acoustics etc..I heard a latin band
> playing in a mall the other day live,I'm sure live instruments are not
> supposed to sound like that..a wash of sound..

Perhaps a mix shouldn't sound like that, but that's one way that live
music sounds. Acoustics everywhere aren't "studio quality." Have you
ever heard a jazz group in a small club, with minimal PA? Or a
singer/songwriter in a coffee house? Or an orchestra?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 2:06:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

reqluq <scrednoapame@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>>
>> So, pick something that sounds good.
>
>That's the prob scott..the radio sounds good :-) but I think I know what
>you mean then again I don't..sounds good where?in my car in my studio?how do
>we know really what's *good*?and that it's not being coloured by the
>surroundings?who's word do we take for it?

Well, there is your problem. That's why I tend to take acoustic forms as
a reference, because otherwise all you have as a reference is what other
people like.

I tend to prefer much more distant imaging than most people, and less deep
a soundfield. Then again, I like to sit in the balcony when I go to concerts
too. Not everybody does.

>> From my standpoint, the only way you can really know how things are
>> supposed
>> to sound is by listening to live acoustic music. In that world, you at
>> least
>> have a standard of comparison for realism.
>
>really?what about the setting?the acoustics etc..I heard a latin band
>playing in a mall the other day live,I'm sure live instruments are not
>supposed to sound like that..a wash of sound..

What makes you think they aren't? Clearly the mall was not really intended
for that sort of thing, but maybe that was the effect the concert master
or the band wanted?

>maybe one needs to stick their ear as close to the kick as possible while
>blocking the other ear to hear *really* what it sounds like..maybe I'm
>making this to complicated ...

Kick drums are a funny thing, because if you listen to an open kick that
way, it sounds terrible. Stick a microphone that is accurate at low
frequencies into an open kick (like a B&K measurement mike) and what you
get is a useless thud that does not sound anything like what people expect
kick drums to sound like. Most of the "rock kick" sound comes from the
distortion of a dynamic microphone stuck into the kick drum. The mike is
part of the instrument in this way.

On the other hand, a jazz group with a small closed kick will have a
totally different kick sound. And they'll tune the kick differently too.
It's a different instrument, intended to be heard in a different way.

Now, for the jazz group, we have a reference to what it should sound like
because we can walk into the room and listen to it live, and make the
recording sound like that.

But for the rock group with the open kick, there is sound -production-
rather than -reproduction- going on. The kick drum sound never existed
acoustically... it only exists in the feed coming out of the microphone.
So you do not have any reference to go by for what it should sound like
acoustically, and therefore you can only use another recording as reference,
or the imaginary sound in your head. Most of rock production centers around
the imaginary sounds in our heads, and trying to translate that to tape.
Acoustic music is totally different because we have a real reference.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 7:15:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1103200105k@trad...
>
> In article <10s2k78hhrqo787@corp.supernews.com> scrednoapame@hotmail.com
> writes:
>
>> > So, pick something that sounds good.
>>
>> That's the prob scott..the radio sounds good :-)
>
> Oh. Now we can better understand your problem. To most of us, radio
> sounds worse than the real thing, even the real CD.

In the context I mean that folks listen to the radio,like the song, and go
buy it.to them it doesn't sound *worse*else I'm sure they wouldn't buy
it..they are the buying public,they spend the money,regardless what you or
me think is worse than this or that.. I know,it *shouldn't be that way* but
it is..
>
>> really?what about the setting?the acoustics etc..I heard a latin band
>> playing in a mall the other day live,I'm sure live instruments are not
>> supposed to sound like that..a wash of sound..
>
> Perhaps a mix shouldn't sound like that, but that's one way that live
> music sounds. Acoustics everywhere aren't "studio quality." Have you
> ever heard a jazz group in a small club, with minimal PA? Or a
> singer/songwriter in a coffee house? Or an orchestra?

Yes and in each setting you get a different *sound* which again as I said
before,if not for some horrible acoustic probs or bad mixing in *sounds
good*
we could go on and on about who sets the standard for *studio quality* and
how do we know it's right,or are we just acclimated to the *sound* and have
to tag the line..
but remember green is not green or for any other colour it is not the
*colour*,,what you see when you see a colour is what's left after the *real*
colour has be absorbed by it's spectrum :-)
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 11:08:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>I seem to remember reading somewhere about a world-famous mastering
>engineer being asked for his opinion on the 'best-mixed' song he's ever
>heard. He said it was Squeeze - "Tempted" or "Black Coffee in Bed" , I
>can't remember which. Of recent releases, I'd recommend
>"Californication" by the Chili Peppers. All of "Californication" is in
>mono, IIRC.


Californication is one level of distortion, showing what over compression and
limiting can do to a song It is a decent song, but mastering and mixing leave a
lot to be desired.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 11:21:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <10s3uo1gpd7e6a4@corp.supernews.com> scrednoapame@hotmail.com writes:

> In the context I mean that folks listen to the radio,like the song, and go
> buy it.to them it doesn't sound *worse*else I'm sure they wouldn't buy
> it..they are the buying public,they spend the money,regardless what you or
> me think is worse than this or that.. I know,it *shouldn't be that way* but
> it is..

Most people who hear a song on the radio and buy it (or the CD it
comes from) don't do s because the audio quality is very good, they do
it because they like the song. The fact that it's coming to them from
a radio is just a convenience. Most of the time it sounds quite
different at home, but it's still the same song, so they still like
it.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 11:25:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

another scenario..joe blow hears a song on the radio ,likes it,buys it,put's
it in his car to listen..damn that's not what I heard on the radio..goes
back into the store asks for refund,for not getting what he expected :-)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1103200105k@trad...
>
> In article <10s2k78hhrqo787@corp.supernews.com> scrednoapame@hotmail.com
> writes:
>
>> > So, pick something that sounds good.
>>
>> That's the prob scott..the radio sounds good :-)
>
> Oh. Now we can better understand your problem. To most of us, radio
> sounds worse than the real thing, even the real CD.
>
>> really?what about the setting?the acoustics etc..I heard a latin band
>> playing in a mall the other day live,I'm sure live instruments are not
>> supposed to sound like that..a wash of sound..
>
> Perhaps a mix shouldn't sound like that, but that's one way that live
> music sounds. Acoustics everywhere aren't "studio quality." Have you
> ever heard a jazz group in a small club, with minimal PA? Or a
> singer/songwriter in a coffee house? Or an orchestra?
>
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
December 16, 2004 11:42:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Sensor wrote:
Are you series man?

Steely Dan used to be some of the best produced, best sounding music on

the planet. With Gaucho they started down the slippery slope of
sterile,
digital "over production", culminating with 2 Against Nature which is a

totally lifeless piece of drech. Grammy, shrammy

Yeah I'm serious. It is contemporary production, on first listen I
thought it was a bit over compressed myself, but then like most
everything Steely Dan writes it grows on you. "Almost Gothic" is a
masterpiece of songwriting, and well produced, all the songs are great.
Yeah; it's designed like most everything else these days to be able to
be pushed to the output limit. At least these guys know how to write a
song.
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 1:14:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

reddred wrote:


>
> I personally can't hear much difference between steely
> dan from the 70's and from the 00's.

Aja, and "Two" sound the same to you?
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 2:31:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Joe Sensor" <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote in message
news:32f4odF3k9p61U1@individual.net...
> reddred wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I personally can't hear much difference between steely
> > dan from the 70's and from the 00's.
>
> Aja, and "Two" sound the same to you?

In essence, the music hasn't changed a whole hell of a lot. Ever.

jb
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 2:31:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

reddred wrote:


> In essence, the music hasn't changed a whole hell of a lot. Ever.


We were talking about engineering and production differences. A good
engineer can discern the differences, even when applied to music they
don't care for.
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 3:19:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Joe Sensor" <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote in message
news:32f5l3F3ldempU1@individual.net...
> reddred wrote:
>
>
>> In essence, the music hasn't changed a whole hell of a lot. Ever.
>
>
> We were talking about engineering and production differences. A good
> engineer can discern the differences, even when applied to music they
> don't care for.

But does the buying public really care?
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 3:45:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"reddred" <opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> laid this on me:
>
> "Joe Sensor" <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote in message
> news:32f4odF3k9p61U1@individual.net...
>> reddred wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I personally can't hear much difference between steely dan from the
>> > 70's and from the 00's.
>>
>> Aja, and "Two" sound the same to you?
>
> In essence, the music hasn't changed a whole hell of a lot. Ever.
>
> jb

Question is, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Sean
--
There is an old saying that if a million monkeys
typed on a million keyboards for a million years,
eventually all the works of Shakespeare would be produced.
Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true.

seans_at_efn.org
http://www.efn.org/~seans
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 5:52:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ben Hanson wrote:

< snip >

> Personally, some of my favorite "sounding" music is Peter Gabriel, the "So"
> album in particular. Are my ears and personal biases (PG is my most
> formative musical influence) lying to me that this album is superbly
> engineered? Is Daniel Lanois' stuff highly regarded in general?

I guess it's what rocks your boat. I think that 'So' is a pretty decent example
too.

If you like PG and fancy something more esoteric check out the Passion RWCD1


Graham
December 17, 2004 6:44:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ben Wrote:
>I always liked Heart's "Dreamboat Annie" in every way (at least
musically and technically), it's got both loud and quiet portions -
they actually snuck dynamics onto LP's back then. I know, this is
before your time too, but I wonder what this would come up as on Bob
Katz's loudness scale.<

We should ask him. That was a great album. Roger Fisher had some great
leads (whatever happened to him after he got booted?) Ann and Nancy
were American Foxes who actually had talent. Man, At the time I would
have liked Nancy to walk on my back with high heeled boots, and I am
not even into that sort of thing. ha

Speaking of loudness, what about that first Boston Album? Some of those
keyboard solos were so low they can't even be heard while driving your
car. Great music though.
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 7:17:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:38:57 -0500, "Ben Hanson"
<transparency_76@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Seems like all the sound reinforcement books from Yamaha on down all
>recommend listening to music that sounds like what you are shooting for
>before, during and after mixing sessions. As a beginner this sounds great to
>me, but I was wanting some suggestions for albums to listen to, where maybe
>the overall mix is good, and then also some where the vocals, the drums,
>etc. sound really good.

While it's more oriented toward fighting the loudness wars and
presenting examples that don't fall into that trap, you may be
interested in seeing Bob Katz' list of "good recordings" - go to
http://digido.com/ and click on CD Honor Roll.

>
>I know a lot of people have said that Steely Dan's stuff is like this but as
>I am only 28 they are a bit before my time, and I was hoping to hear
>examples of something that I am more familiar with musically.

Hmm. From the comments on that page, he says all of his examples
are from before 1990. It would seem that the things you're more
familiar with would also have more compression and limiting to make
them louder than earlier recordings.
FWIW (just my opinion, see the post in this thread on opinions...),
I always liked Heart's "Dreamboat Annie" in every way (at least
musically and technically), it's got both loud and quiet portions -
they actually snuck dynamics onto LP's back then. I know, this is
before your time too, but I wonder what this would come up as on Bob
Katz's loudness scale.

>TIA...
>
>-Ben
>

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 1:34:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <10s4dhj8lj8dk1b@corp.supernews.com> scrednoapame@hotmail.com writes:

> another scenario..joe blow hears a song on the radio ,likes it,buys it,put's
> it in his car to listen..damn that's not what I heard on the radio..goes
> back into the store asks for refund,for not getting what he expected :-)

It happens hundreds of times every day . . . right!


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 3:30:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <10s3uo1gpd7e6a4@corp.supernews.com>
> scrednoapame@hotmail.com writes:
>
>> In the context I mean that folks listen to the radio,like the song,
>> and go buy it.to them it doesn't sound *worse*else I'm sure they
>> wouldn't buy it..they are the buying public,they spend the
>> money,regardless what you or me think is worse than this or that.. I
>> know,it *shouldn't be that way* but it is..
>
> Most people who hear a song on the radio and buy it (or the CD it
> comes from) don't do s because the audio quality is very good, they do
> it because they like the song. The fact that it's coming to them from
> a radio is just a convenience. Most of the time it sounds quite
> different at home, but it's still the same song, so they still like
> it.

Yeah, but we (the engineers) are a significant part of compelling someone to
'like the song.' Sure it sounds different in the car, or the house, or on
your $3.95 keychain radio; but in the end, a great song can suffer to the
point that the general public will not 'like' it if it's poorly recorded.

jak
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 11:30:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> "jakdedert" jdedert@bellsouth.net

> a great song can suffer to the
>point that the general public will not 'like' it if it's poorly recorded.

Go tell that to the Kingsmen.
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 12:21:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2004-12-17, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:

> It happens hundreds of times every day . . . right!

Has anyone, ever, gotten a refund from a retail music store on a CD?
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 12:21:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"james of tucson" <fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:slrncs6jhg.q3l.fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com...
> On 2004-12-17, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
>> It happens hundreds of times every day . . . right!
>
> Has anyone, ever, gotten a refund from a retail music store on a CD?

I meant it in a hypothetical way..as to say ,the engineer did a *great job*
on the mix and mastering etc..the radio put's it through their system...eq
compress etc..and then it's fed to the guys radio system in the car..when he
hears the original from the cd,he doesn't like the sound he hears direct
from the cd in sounds *thinner* or whatever..just not the same as the
radio...even though the whole engineer community swears by the mix..but hey
joe blow ( the buying public) didn't like it.....so?
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 12:24:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

store credit only
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 12:32:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"james of tucson" <fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:slrncs6jhg.q3l.fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com...
> On 2004-12-17, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
> > It happens hundreds of times every day . . . right!
>
> Has anyone, ever, gotten a refund from a retail music store on a CD?
>

Not in a long time.

jb
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 12:44:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Joe Sensor" <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote in message
news:32f5l3F3ldempU1@individual.net...
> reddred wrote:
>
>
> > In essence, the music hasn't changed a whole hell of a lot. Ever.
>
>
> We were talking about engineering and production differences. A good
> engineer can discern the differences, even when applied to music they
> don't care for.

The basic sound of the records hasn't changed much... ever. Although the
albums are engineered well, and a good engineer will refine their techniques
and look for a way to integrate useful technologies as they arrive. A giood
engineer isn't going to reject something just because it doesn't sound like
it was made 30 years ago.

I just happen to hate the way Steely Dan records sound. To each their own.

jb
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 12:56:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:21:46 GMT, james of tucson
<fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com> wrote:
> On 2004-12-17, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
>> It happens hundreds of times every day . . . right!
>
> Has anyone, ever, gotten a refund from a retail music store on a CD?
>

Do you have access to a razor blade and shrink wrap equipment?

The implementation is left as an excercise for the reader.
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 4:58:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

james of tucson wrote:

> Has anyone, ever, gotten a refund from a retail music store on a CD?

Yes, a friend of mine got his money back for Shania´s "Come on over" here in
Germany, because it had all the Nashville chops listed, but no-one of those
is on those special European (or German) mixes.
AFAIR..., Daniel?

--
Peter
---
http://www.merlinsound.de
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 2:34:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

* Peter Duemmler <merlin@merlinsound.de>:
> james of tucson wrote:
>
>> Has anyone, ever, gotten a refund from a retail music store on a CD?
>
> Yes, a friend of mine got his money back for Shania´s "Come on over" here in
> Germany, because it had all the Nashville chops listed, but no-one of those
> is on those special European (or German) mixes.
> AFAIR..., Daniel?

Correct.

I "accidently" bought the European/"International" Version:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000031VR1

The original has even a different (awful looking) cover:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000001EW3

The European/"International" version did contain all the musician
credits, but you don't hear them playing... Brent Mason, Bruce Bouton,
Paul Franklin... you name 'em. Either they left the tracks out
completely, or replaced them by some electronic version of the
instrument, barely recognizable (I can remember that this was done
to the fiddle in one track).

Well, I went back to the retail shop, told them that I don't hear
the well-known musicians listed on the cover back and that I feel
betrayed. I got a full refund without problems.


Regards,
Daniel
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 12:32:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ben Hanson" <transparency_76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41c06197@mustang.speedfactory.net

> I know what you are saying Arny but surely there is a sort of
> baseline set of things to listen for?

Musical genres are so diverse that the *right* answer varies all over the
map.

>At least for someone starting
> out anyway, like me? It's kind of like telling someone who wants to
> learn tennis to just go get a racket and start trying to play.

Music is a lot more varied than tennis, I think.

> At the higher levels there is a lot of freedom to do some things in
> unique
> ways but as a beginner there is definitely a right and wrong way to
> hold the racket, etc, no matter how you play. Maybe I am
> oversimplifying? I will check out the book you recommended though,
> thanks for the suggestion...

I would say that first you figure out whether you want fame, love, or
fortune. Then pick a genre of music. Then pick out some leaders in your
chosen genre of music that have either fame, love, or fortune, the same as
you chose. Then study what they do and how they do it. If you can't study
them, study a nearby example.
March 21, 2012 9:50:31 AM

That's informative post. Thanks for sharing such a useful information. I must say that you people shared brilliant examples . Indeed, I enjoyed the post. You did great job. Keep it up !
preshipment inspection services
!