Questions about mastering.

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

I mixed some material for a jazz singer who took the song to a
masterer. The masterer added global reverb and normalized the song. The
singer didn't like it, and has contacted another masterer who said to
remove all the vocal reverb. Huh? I was under the impression we should
mix the song to our liking, then send it to a masterer who does
whatever a masterer does to improve the overall sonic quality. So what
to do? The singer says the pre-mastered song sounds great.
24 answers Last reply
More about questions mastering
  1. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    >So what
    >to do?

    Pick another mastering engineer, or make it clear to this one that the
    mix is completed and not open to modification. He's supposed to be
    mastering at this stage, not mixing.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    <bayareamusician@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >I mixed some material for a jazz singer who took the song to a
    >masterer. The masterer added global reverb and normalized the song. The
    >singer didn't like it, and has contacted another masterer who said to
    >remove all the vocal reverb. Huh? I was under the impression we should
    >mix the song to our liking, then send it to a masterer who does
    >whatever a masterer does to improve the overall sonic quality. So what
    >to do? The singer says the pre-mastered song sounds great.

    That's why it's important to be at the mastering session, so you can
    listen and critique. The mastering engineer may point out a lot of things
    you never noticed before. Then again, the artist might have to point out
    a lot of things to the mastering engineer about what he or she is trying
    to get things to sound like.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  3. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    bayareamusician@hotmail.com wrote:

    > I mixed some material for a jazz singer who took the song to a
    > masterer. The masterer added global reverb and normalized the song. The
    > singer didn't like it, and has contacted another masterer who said to
    > remove all the vocal reverb. Huh? I was under the impression we should
    > mix the song to our liking, then send it to a masterer who does
    > whatever a masterer does to improve the overall sonic quality. So what
    > to do? The singer says the pre-mastered song sounds great.

    "Sonic quality" is largely subjective. If the singer is happy with your
    mix, why doesn't he/she just go with that?


    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0534-2, 08/24/2005
    Tested on: 8/24/2005 11:04:01 AM
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
  4. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    I've never heard of a "real" mastering engineer globally adding reverb
    to a track without asking first. It can totally change the vibe of the
    track and changing the vibe of a track is NEVER up to the assumption of
    a masterer who has no relationship with the producer/artist. His/her
    job is to gel the tracks you give them into a cohesive (or not)
    experience, making them sound better for broadcast and play on your
    buyers' systems, especially if the mix was final as far as you're
    concerned.

    No client would ever return to someone who unexpectedly changed a
    track's character during a supposed mastering session. If you and
    the client both liked the mix, mastering is just supposed to make it
    sound better. Maybe bigger, maybe warmer, mayber deeper or brighter,
    but DEFINITELY not so different as to make you go, "..Wha???"


    Sounds like a bad egg. Get your money back. Warn your friends.

    You're not crazy. He is.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <1124905738.020457.68590@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    bayareamusician@hotmail.com wrote:

    > I mixed some material for a jazz singer who took the song to a
    > masterer. The masterer added global reverb and normalized the song. The
    > singer didn't like it, and has contacted another masterer who said to
    > remove all the vocal reverb. Huh? I was under the impression we should
    > mix the song to our liking, then send it to a masterer who does
    > whatever a masterer does to improve the overall sonic quality. So what
    > to do? The singer says the pre-mastered song sounds great.

    Unless you asked for a mixing critique, a mastering engineer commenting
    on the reverb level is rather odd, and instructing you to remove "all
    vocal reverb" is downright crazy. Unless you are asking for something in
    mastering that is difficult to achieve due to an existing mix issue, or
    unless there is a technical flaw, mastering engineers should work with
    the mix you are already happy with to help you achieve your creative
    goals, not impose their own. As for the other engineer, adding reverb
    without asking the client is a serious breach. Seldom does one add
    reverb globally in mastering, and never without the client's approval.
    It sounds like you have contacted two people who aren't particularly
    skilled mastering engineers, or that something has been lost in the
    communication.

    Mastering is important, even if the engineer does very little. Mastering
    engineers should not be afraid to take a somewhat hands off approach if
    appropriate, nor should clients with good recordings and mixes of very
    natural sounding music be surprised if there is not a night and day
    difference between the before and after. It doesn't mean the exercise
    was not still important and beneficial. Sounds like you need to contact
    a better mastering engineer for this project. There are plenty to choose
    from. Contact several until you find one that gets what you are trying
    to do, and pick and experienced professional. Owning a computer with
    some plug-ins does not make a person a qualified mastering engineer.

    --
    Jay Frigoletto
    Mastersuite
    www.promastering.com
  6. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On 8/24/05 1:48 PM, in article
    1124905738.020457.68590@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
    "bayareamusician@hotmail.com" <bayareamusician@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > I mixed some material for a jazz singer who took the song to a
    > masterer. The masterer added global reverb and normalized the song. The
    > singer didn't like it, and has contacted another masterer who said to
    > remove all the vocal reverb. Huh? I was under the impression we should
    > mix the song to our liking, then send it to a masterer who does
    > whatever a masterer does to improve the overall sonic quality. So what
    > to do? The singer says the pre-mastered song sounds great.

    If indeed the mix is truly primo, a REAL mastering engineer would FIRST take
    a good listen and say
    "hey.. This sounds pretty damned good, what else did you have in mind for
    it?"
    And then if you didin;t have any real wants, they;d go through it and look
    for Bad Stuff like sub-sonic whumps or other weird problems that wouldn;t
    show up elsewhere... Check for each song's overall balance and timbre as
    compared to the others and then maybe tweak a bit (if you wanted) to get
    them all to sound alittle more like they belong on the same record *this
    really applies for dicfferent productions from different producers and/or
    studios that might souhd VERY different in character)

    That¹s it.
    Did you actually PAY the other guy?
  7. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Paging Dave Dexter....paging Dave Dexter....


    <vdubreeze@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:1124942034.617360.37070@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > I've never heard of a "real" mastering engineer globally adding reverb
    > to a track without asking first. It can totally change the vibe of the
    > track and changing the vibe of a track is NEVER up to the assumption of
    > a masterer who has no relationship with the producer/artist. His/her
    > job is to gel the tracks you give them into a cohesive (or not)
    > experience, making them sound better for broadcast and play on your
    > buyers' systems, especially if the mix was final as far as you're
    > concerned.
    >
    > No client would ever return to someone who unexpectedly changed a
    > track's character during a supposed mastering session. If you and
    > the client both liked the mix, mastering is just supposed to make it
    > sound better. Maybe bigger, maybe warmer, mayber deeper or brighter,
    > but DEFINITELY not so different as to make you go, "..Wha???"
    >
    >
    > Sounds like a bad egg. Get your money back. Warn your friends.
    >
    > You're not crazy. He is.
    >
  8. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Jay-atldigi wrote:

    > Owning a computer with some plug-ins does not make a person a qualified
    > mastering engineer.

    ..sig material, Jay.

    (You need all that and a coffee maker, too, right? <g>)

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

    In article <1h1tdq8.12plsra1d0c91rN%walkinay@thegrid.net>,
    walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich) wrote:

    > Jay-atldigi wrote:
    >
    > > Owning a computer with some plug-ins does not make a person a qualified
    > > mastering engineer.
    >
    > .sig material, Jay.
    >
    > (You need all that and a coffee maker, too, right? <g>)
    >
    > --
    > ha

    Espresso, Hank, espresso!

    --
    Jay Frigoletto
    Mastersuite
    www.promastering.com
  10. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    > I mixed some material for a jazz singer who took the song to a
    > masterer. The masterer added global reverb and normalized the song. The
    > singer didn't like it, and has contacted another masterer who said to
    > remove all the vocal reverb. Huh? I was under the impression we should
    > mix the song to our liking, then send it to a masterer who does
    > whatever a masterer does to improve the overall sonic quality. So what
    > to do? The singer says the pre-mastered song sounds great.

    Those two people can't be legitimate mastering engineers. I've heard trashy
    mixes full of blatant mix errors go through accredited mastering houses
    without complaint. Then again I've also read Bob Ludwig's complaints about
    getting mixes he really liked and being heart-broken when he's required to
    "smush" them.

    What I want from a mastering job is generally just tube/tape coloration and
    HDCD encoding, maybe some minor adjustments to the top and bottom octaves.

    My response to either of these clowns would be "are you looking for a
    production credit or something?" Sounds to me like you haven't researched
    either of these engineers adequately. IMO mastering is either worth $80+
    per song or not at all. I don't bother with outside mastering unless
    there's at least a distribution deal in place. Any idiot can run the tunes
    through T-Racks, which is perfectly adequate for merch table CD's, and
    there's nothing stopping you from mastering properly later if a deal is
    struck.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On 8/25/05 5:36 PM, in article BRqPe.2829$_Z4.2078@read1.cgocable.net,
    "Zigakly" <no@no.no> wrote:
    > What I want from a mastering job is generally just tube/tape coloration and
    > HDCD encoding, maybe some minor adjustments to the top and bottom octaves.
    >

    What... HDCD is still being foisted on folks?
    Ack... Why?
  12. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:24:49 +0000, SSJVCmag wrote:

    > On 8/25/05 5:36 PM, in article BRqPe.2829$_Z4.2078@read1.cgocable.net,
    > "Zigakly" <no@no.no> wrote:
    >> What I want from a mastering job is generally just tube/tape coloration
    >> and HDCD encoding, maybe some minor adjustments to the top and bottom
    >> octaves.
    >>
    >>
    > What... HDCD is still being foisted on folks? Ack... Why?

    What... tube/tape coloration at mastering is still being foisted on folks?
    Ack... Why?
  13. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On 8/25/05 8:53 PM, in article pan.2005.08.26.00.53.26.938439@control.gov,
    "Agent 86" <maxwellsmart@control.gov> wrote:

    > On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:24:49 +0000, SSJVCmag wrote:
    >
    >> On 8/25/05 5:36 PM, in article BRqPe.2829$_Z4.2078@read1.cgocable.net,
    >> "Zigakly" <no@no.no> wrote:
    >>> What I want from a mastering job is generally just tube/tape coloration
    >>> and HDCD encoding, maybe some minor adjustments to the top and bottom
    >>> octaves.
    >>>
    >>>
    >> What... HDCD is still being foisted on folks? Ack... Why?
    >
    > What... tube/tape coloration at mastering is still being foisted on folks?
    > Ack... Why?
    >

    OK... Simpler then...
    HDCD: Why?
  14. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    SSJVCmag <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote:
    >
    >OK... Simpler then...
    >HDCD: Why?
    >

    I dunno about HDCD. It doesn't seem to do any harm, and if you go to
    HDCD you're forced to use the excellent Pacific Microsonics converters
    in the process.

    It does seem to extend the dynamic range a little bit on some kinds of
    signals if properly decoded, and it doesn't do much real harm if played
    back without decoding.

    It's not a huge advance in technology by any stretch, and it's definitely
    a bag on the side of the CD, but I don't see it as a terrible one.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  15. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
    news:BF342DD3.F961%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
    > On 8/25/05 8:53 PM, in article
    > pan.2005.08.26.00.53.26.938439@control.gov, "Agent 86"
    > <maxwellsmart@control.gov> wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:24:49 +0000, SSJVCmag wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 8/25/05 5:36 PM, in article
    >>> BRqPe.2829$_Z4.2078@read1.cgocable.net, "Zigakly"
    >>> <no@no.no> wrote:
    >>>> What I want from a mastering job is generally just
    >>>> tube/tape coloration and HDCD encoding, maybe some
    >>>> minor adjustments to the top and bottom octaves.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> What... HDCD is still being foisted on folks? Ack...
    >>> Why?
    >>
    >> What... tube/tape coloration at mastering is still being
    >> foisted on folks? Ack... Why?

    > OK... Simpler then...

    > HDCD: Why?

    Good question, given that most or all of the subjective
    benefits of 4 bits of added resolution could (and probably
    was in many cases) added with noise shaping. This while
    preserving 100% backward and forward compatibility with Red
    Book standard hardware.
  16. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On 8/26/05 9:06 AM, in article den44p$ccn$1@panix2.panix.com, "Scott Dorsey"
    <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

    > SSJVCmag <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> OK... Simpler then...
    >> HDCD: Why?
    >>
    >
    > I dunno about HDCD. It doesn't seem to do any harm, and if you go to
    > HDCD you're forced to use the excellent Pacific Microsonics converters
    > in the process.

    Separate issues (and my point)
    The PM mastering tools are PRIMO.


    >
    > It does seem to extend the dynamic range a little bit on some kinds of
    > signals if properly decoded, and it doesn't do much real harm if played
    > back without decoding.

    Depends on the choice at the session. You can indeed slam 12dB or better out
    of the sound, get it back on the decode side, but all you're doing is
    forced-selling HDCD blinkylite decoders... there's isn't a thing you can
    hear that HDCD encode/decode does that can't be accomplished by doing the
    SAME mastering job -without- the trick-thing and just turning the playback
    knob up a skoshe. Ok... so you might be able to pull 120dB S/N out of a
    44/16 CD but who can listen to it? It's like sticking a drag racing engine
    in a Ford Anglia and saying "You Need This more than a Porshe... it;s a
    better overall driving experience for London traffic".


    > It's not a huge advance in technology by any stretch, and it's definitely
    > a bag on the side of the CD, but I don't see it as a terrible one.

    That it's a white elephant of a 'feature' with a gear-sale price tag should
    grate.
  17. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On 8/26/05 10:34 AM, in article 4IadnRBRjdLFtZLeRVn-1g@comcast.com, "Arny
    Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

    > "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
    > news:BF342DD3.F961%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
    >> On 8/25/05 8:53 PM, in article
    >> pan.2005.08.26.00.53.26.938439@control.gov, "Agent 86"
    >> <maxwellsmart@control.gov> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:24:49 +0000, SSJVCmag wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 8/25/05 5:36 PM, in article
    >>>> BRqPe.2829$_Z4.2078@read1.cgocable.net, "Zigakly"
    >>>> <no@no.no> wrote:
    >>>>> What I want from a mastering job is generally just
    >>>>> tube/tape coloration and HDCD encoding, maybe some
    >>>>> minor adjustments to the top and bottom octaves.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> What... HDCD is still being foisted on folks? Ack...
    >>>> Why?
    >>>
    >>> What... tube/tape coloration at mastering is still being
    >>> foisted on folks? Ack... Why?
    >
    >> OK... Simpler then...
    >
    >> HDCD: Why?
    >
    > Good question, given that most or all of the subjective
    > benefits of 4 bits of added resolution could (and probably
    > was in many cases) added with noise shaping. This while
    > preserving 100% backward and forward compatibility with Red
    > Book standard hardware.
    >
    >
    My big beef is that you start wiath a great hi-quality mastered recording
    ready to go to CD and thrill right out of the box, ... But then you master
    CD's with th HDCD enc/dec trick so that they play on normal systems with
    significant mastering squash/dynamics-reduction while the consumer can then
    only get the pristine sound back using the proprietary HDCD players...
    All this does is sell trick gear.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
    news:BF34AAA8.F9A5%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
    > On 8/26/05 10:34 AM, in article
    > 4IadnRBRjdLFtZLeRVn-1g@comcast.com, "Arny Krueger"
    > <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
    >
    >> "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
    >> news:BF342DD3.F961%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com

    >>> HDCD: Why?

    >> Good question, given that most or all of the subjective
    >> benefits of 4 bits of added resolution could (and
    >> probably was in many cases) added with noise shaping.
    >> This while preserving 100% backward and forward
    >> compatibility with Red Book standard hardware.

    > My big beef is that you start wiath a great hi-quality
    > mastered recording ready to go to CD and thrill right out
    > of the box, ... But then you master CD's with th HDCD
    > enc/dec trick so that they play on normal systems with
    > significant mastering squash/dynamics-reduction while
    > the consumer can then only get the pristine sound back
    > using the proprietary HDCD players...

    Agreed - in the end HDCD was bad engineering because a
    similar bang could be achieved for next to zero bucks.
    Furthermore, the bang was pretty much moot, given the
    realities of making and listening to recordings.

    > All this does is sell trick gear.

    Agreed. So the company failed, the technology got snatched
    up by MS, and resurfaced as an near-apocryphal no-charge
    software feature of the
    sorta-freebie-comes-with-no-extra-charge MS Media Player.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On 8/26/05 11:26 AM, in article a-ednZUkjvc_qZLeRVn-ig@comcast.com, "Arny
    Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

    > "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
    > news:BF34AAA8.F9A5%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
    >> On 8/26/05 10:34 AM, in article
    >> 4IadnRBRjdLFtZLeRVn-1g@comcast.com, "Arny Krueger"
    >> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:BF342DD3.F961%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
    >
    >>>> HDCD: Why?
    >
    >>> Good question, given that most or all of the subjective
    >>> benefits of 4 bits of added resolution could (and
    >>> probably was in many cases) added with noise shaping.
    >>> This while preserving 100% backward and forward
    >>> compatibility with Red Book standard hardware.
    >
    >> My big beef is that you start wiath a great hi-quality
    >> mastered recording ready to go to CD and thrill right out
    >> of the box, ... But then you master CD's with th HDCD
    >> enc/dec trick so that they play on normal systems with
    >> significant mastering squash/dynamics-reduction while
    >> the consumer can then only get the pristine sound back
    >> using the proprietary HDCD players...
    >
    > Agreed - in the end HDCD was bad engineering because a
    > similar bang could be achieved for next to zero bucks.
    > Furthermore, the bang was pretty much moot, given the
    > realities of making and listening to recordings.
    >
    >> All this does is sell trick gear.
    >
    > Agreed. So the company failed, the technology got snatched
    > up by MS, and resurfaced as an near-apocryphal no-charge
    > software feature of the
    > sorta-freebie-comes-with-no-extra-charge MS Media Player.

    Ahhhhhh! And HERE's where my ignorance gets pointed out...
    Hadn't a clue, figured HDCD was still floating around looking for a
    market... Instead it's yet ANOTHER Msoft proprietary 'replacement' for an
    otherwise simple public standard.
    Where's the story?
  20. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
    news:BF35189A.F9F8%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com

    > On 8/26/05 11:26 AM, in article
    > a-ednZUkjvc_qZLeRVn-ig@comcast.com, "Arny Krueger"
    > <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

    >> "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
    >> news:BF34AAA8.F9A5%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com

    >>> On 8/26/05 10:34 AM, in article
    >>> 4IadnRBRjdLFtZLeRVn-1g@comcast.com, "Arny Krueger"
    >>> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

    >>>> "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:BF342DD3.F961%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com

    >>> All this does is sell trick gear.

    >> Agreed. So the company failed, the technology got
    >> snatched up by MS, and resurfaced as an near-apocryphal
    >> no-charge software feature of the
    >> sorta-freebie-comes-with-no-extra-charge MS Media Player.

    > Ahhhhhh! And HERE's where my ignorance gets pointed out...
    > Hadn't a clue, figured HDCD was still floating around
    > looking for a market... Instead it's yet ANOTHER Msoft
    > proprietary 'replacement' for an otherwise simple public
    > standard.

    > Where's the story?

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/hdcd/hdcdabout.aspx
  21. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On 8/27/05 5:48 AM, in article S6KdnedR7_Zaq43eRVn-2Q@comcast.com, "Arny
    Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

    > "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
    > news:BF35189A.F9F8%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
    >
    >> On 8/26/05 11:26 AM, in article
    >> a-ednZUkjvc_qZLeRVn-ig@comcast.com, "Arny Krueger"
    >> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
    >
    >>> "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:BF34AAA8.F9A5%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
    >
    >>>> On 8/26/05 10:34 AM, in article
    >>>> 4IadnRBRjdLFtZLeRVn-1g@comcast.com, "Arny Krueger"
    >>>> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
    >
    >>>>> "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:BF342DD3.F961%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
    >
    >>>> All this does is sell trick gear.
    >
    >>> Agreed. So the company failed, the technology got
    >>> snatched up by MS, and resurfaced as an near-apocryphal
    >>> no-charge software feature of the
    >>> sorta-freebie-comes-with-no-extra-charge MS Media Player.
    >
    >> Ahhhhhh! And HERE's where my ignorance gets pointed out...
    >> Hadn't a clue, figured HDCD was still floating around
    >> looking for a market... Instead it's yet ANOTHER Msoft
    >> proprietary 'replacement' for an otherwise simple public
    >> standard.
    >
    >> Where's the story?
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/hdcd/hdcdabout.aspx
    >
    >

    Laughing and gagging simultaneously... Quite an experience.
    They changed the name, kept the advertising hyperbole and foisted it on a
    whole additional market...
    Sigh,..

    Thanks for the pointer.
  22. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:33:31 GMT, SSJVCmag <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com>
    wrote:

    >Laughing and gagging simultaneously... Quite an experience.
    >They changed the name, kept the advertising hyperbole and foisted it on a
    >whole additional market...

    Are you talking about MS-DOS? ;-)

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

    On 8/28/05 7:56 PM, in article nnj4h15oaq28v8nuv56v0fg9ese0mm9mbm@4ax.com,
    "Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote:

    > On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:33:31 GMT, SSJVCmag <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Laughing and gagging simultaneously... Quite an experience.
    >> They changed the name, kept the advertising hyperbole and foisted it on a
    >> whole additional market...
    >
    > Are you talking about MS-DOS? ;-)

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

    "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
    news:BF37C209.FC85%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
    > On 8/27/05 5:48 AM, in article
    > S6KdnedR7_Zaq43eRVn-2Q@comcast.com, "Arny Krueger"
    > <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
    >
    >> "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
    >> news:BF35189A.F9F8%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
    >>
    >>> On 8/26/05 11:26 AM, in article
    >>> a-ednZUkjvc_qZLeRVn-ig@comcast.com, "Arny Krueger"
    >>> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:BF34AAA8.F9A5%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
    >>
    >>>>> On 8/26/05 10:34 AM, in article
    >>>>> 4IadnRBRjdLFtZLeRVn-1g@comcast.com, "Arny Krueger"
    >>>>> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>> "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in
    >>>>>> message news:BF342DD3.F961%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
    >>
    >>>>> All this does is sell trick gear.
    >>
    >>>> Agreed. So the company failed, the technology got
    >>>> snatched up by MS, and resurfaced as an near-apocryphal
    >>>> no-charge software feature of the
    >>>> sorta-freebie-comes-with-no-extra-charge MS Media
    >>>> Player.
    >>
    >>> Ahhhhhh! And HERE's where my ignorance gets pointed
    >>> out... Hadn't a clue, figured HDCD was still floating
    >>> around looking for a market... Instead it's yet ANOTHER
    >>> Msoft proprietary 'replacement' for an otherwise simple
    >>> public standard.

    >>> Where's the story?

    >> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/hdcd/hdcdabout.aspx

    > Laughing and gagging simultaneously... Quite an
    > experience.

    I've been quietly biding my time, waiting for the explosion
    of laughter and outrage. ;-)

    > They changed the name, kept the advertising hyperbole and
    > foisted it on a whole additional market...
    > Sigh,..

    > Thanks for the pointer.

    Enjoy!
Ask a new question

Read More

Pro Audio Audio