"recursor" wrote in message
...

In your opinion that is.

In the opinion of those of us who have wisely moved beyond the long-resolved
wars between analog and digital. Call us legion!

"recursor" wrote in message
o.uk...

Well ****, your doing well to get to two records before extreme boredom
sets in. It's a mind-numbingly menial task requiring almost no
intelligence at all.

Well, that explains your preference for vinyl as good as anything...

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Four cardiod capsules which allowed a degree of electronic adjustment.
Although it didn't beat physically moving the mic. It's quite common
to use mics on large booms in recording studios to positon 'overall'
mics. But would be difficult to transport to a location.

The Calrec mics were pretty much laboratory curiosities.

Not in the UK. We had a couple at Thames TV.

Ever price the Calrecs? If you could even find one for sale, a Calrec
array was well on its way to 5 figures. The elements have to be very
good, and also well-matched.

I doubt they cost Thames that. I'd have guessed at perhaps less than half
that. So not outrageous given the cost of a decent stereo pair.

[snip}


Indeed. Incidentally for those interested, it's best to block off one
ear when listening to something you're going to record. Even if you're
recording in stereo.

Personally, I think its a lot more effective to listen to the output of
the microphone with some high-isolation headphones.

I'm talking about before you even get the mic out of its box.

--
*Filthy stinking rich -- well, two out of three ain't bad

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

"recursor" wrote in message
...
On 12/24/2011 01:25 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

wrote:
The human ear/brain combo may very well construct notes which aren't
there. However the ear can hear down to 50 Hz and good vinyl
recordings
can reproduce the 50 Hz frequencies made by the double bass and the
celtic harp. No doubt in the recording studio superior bass
amplification techniques/equipment are needed for this to happen but
my
part in this thread was only a reply to Arny who said that notes below
100 Hz are not present on vinyl...which is ********.

Arny didn't say that. Just that vinyl can't *accurately* reproduce
signals
below 100 Hz.

Which is ********.

The reason why was explained,

The imaginary techno-babble reason was explained.


Very sad.

Yeah, techno-babble is sad, especially when it's espousers think that what
they are saying actually makes some kind of scientific sense.

Don't take our word for it, go and read a few books on the subject.

David.

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in
:



Most of my VHS tapes have stereo sound on them using the VHS "HiFi"
stereo system. But the system was never very good as the inherent
background noise on the FM system employed was very high and the
simple noise reduction system employed didn't always make a very good
job of hiding it, resulting in audible noise modulation.

To an extent that is only a theoretical problem. While the system is
not perfect, it's miles ahead of the linear mono audio. And while it
may not be quite as good as CD, it's rather close, and usually no worse
than the television audio recorded on it. People used to use it as a
method to record audio only at good quality cheaply, for example radio
shows.

The problem with VHS "HiFi" was that it lacked robustness. With a brand-new
machine playing back its own recordings made on good-quality tape it could
sound OK, at least as long as the sorts of sounds (solo flute, screams,
squealing cars brakes etc.) that showed up the deficiencies of the noise
reduction system employed were avoided.

Also as tapes
age the FM signal recoverable from the tape is often inadequate. In my
experience audio from the straightforward mono edge track is often of
more acceptable quality that from the "HiFi" stereo tracks.

The HiFi audio can break up if the tape is old or the tracking is
misaligned, but that should only happen once in a while. When it works,
the HiFi system is vastly superior to the linear track.

Even when it works it wasn't "vastly superior" due to the noise modulation.
And the more upmarket machines (esp. SVHS) that had impedance rollers close
to the audio/control head stack and better electronics could produce a
surprisingly good performance from the linear track despite the low tape
speed. To my ears it was often preferable to the crackling and noise
modulation that was the hallmark of the so-called "HiFi" system.

David.

On Dec 24 2011, 3:01*pm, Java Jive wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 11:49:15 +0000 (GMT), charles

wrote:
In article ,
* *Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

[Snip]

You digitised your entire record collection? IMO it's not economical to
digitise vinyl in DIY as long as the same albums are available on CD
commercially. You'll spend 2 hours minimum recording, post processing
and burning the tracks of a single album, and that is not counting the
time for scanning the artwork. Unless you value or own free time very
low, just buying the same album on CD is much more cost effective.

That is true, but is unhelpful when the vast majority of LPs that I
have left were never published on CD, or if they were, only briefly
and have since been deleted.* *Most of those available on CD I've
already replaced.

It might be more cost effective to buy CDs, but doing it yourself doesn't
involve financial outlay. *I have 300+ LPs in the loft. *To replace them
with CD would cost a lot of money which, since I live on a pension, isn't a
practical proposition. *My time only costs me if by digitising a CD I have
to pay someone else to do another job that I could do myself. *And in any
case, I can do other things when the LP is playing, I don't need to monitor
it all the time.

Exactly. *As I've already stated up thread, now I certainly wouldn't
be throwing good money after a not so good medium like vinyl by, say,
buying a vinyl washer, but I already had it from some years ago.

* Much of the entire history of UK folk music from about the late '60s
through the '70s and '80s to the early '90s was only ever published on
LP, or perhaps only briefly republished on CD, so the only way to get
copies of these now is either from a second-hand LP or by downloading
someone else's digitisation of the CD *- *given the illegality, and
perhaps more importantly usually the poor bitrates, of the latter, the
former might be considered preferable, certainly so if you already
happen to own the LP.

Small labels *- *like Leader, Highway, Rubber *- *gradually went bust,
and were bought up by other concerns, many of them by one particularly
controversial one called Celtic Music. *This label was and may very
well still be subject to a Musicians' Union 'notice' (being only ever
an amateur, I'm not a member so I can't link to it), concerning its,
how shall I state this, behaviour that might be considered 'unfair' or
'unfriendly' to the musician? *This behaviour has also been much
discussed, often very emotively, in public forums such aswww.mudcat.org.

The treatment of Nic Jones has been the subject of the most heated
controversy. *While driving home from a gig in the '80s, Nic had an
accident that effectively ended his musical carreer *- *hand and brain
damage. *Much of his most important output til then had been recorded
for his friend Bill Leader's eponymous label. *I'm not certain of the
precise history of the label, but I think Bill died sometime after
Nic's accident, and the label went bust around the same time. *What is
not in dispute, about the only thing that isn't, is that CM 'claim' to
own the rights of all the Leader recordings, including Nic's. *None of
these recordings have ever been properly published in a legally
transparent way on CD accountable to MCPS ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCPS-PRS_Alliance
... but instead there are whispers of CD-R recordings where no
royalties need to be paid to the artist.

All I know for certain is:

*:-) * *An early and particularly fine Barbara Dickson album "From the
Beggar's Mantle" that I bought apparently from CM turned out, to my
relief, to be a pukka CD from Decca.

*:-( * *I contacted Nic's wife Julia concerning one of Nic's early
albums of which I'd seen a CD for sale somewhere, asking whether, if I
bought it, Nic would get any royalties, and when she answered no, I
didn't buy the album, much as I wanted it.

*:-) * *Nic's last and best album, Pengun Eggs, was fortunately
published on Topic, and is thus still available even on CD:http://www.nicjones.net/shop?shopPag...ct=1_penguin_e...

But quite apart from the CM horror story, normal commercial pressures
have killed off a lot of original recordings. *This is a problem not
just for folk music, but also for other minority genres such as Music
Hall.

For example, my collection includedes the following albums, AFAIAA
none of which have ever been available on CD, and all of which are so
good that I consider myself lucky to have them ...

Bandoggs: * * * * * * * (eponymous album)
Dab Hand: * * * * * * * High Rock And Low Glen
Cilla Fisher: * * * * * Songs Of The Fishing
Dubliners: * * * * * * *Finnegan Wakes
Dubliners: * * * * * * *Live At The Royal Albert Hall
Eddie Walker: * Red Shoes On My Feet
Ewan MacColl & Peggy Seeger: * * * *World Of
Filarfolket: * * * * * *Live!
Galliards: * * * * * * *Scottish Choice
Gerry Hallom: * A Run A Minute
Gerry Hallom: * Travellin' Down The Castlereagh
House Band: * * (eponymous album)
Nic Jones: * * * * * * *Noah's Ark Trap

... while the rest of the collection contain countless individual
tracks, usually about three or four per album, that I didn't want to
lose, as well as some 'family' albums of my mother's which other
members of my family have occasionally expressed an interest in
hearing again.

When we had a 50 year sound recording copyright term, you could at
least hope that any recordings from your youth, hoarded by the record
labels (and in some cases, artists) would be re-released (or you could
re-release them yourself) at some point during your lifetime.

Now Sir Cliff and the record companies have successfully lobbied to
increase this to 70 years, and will doubtless increase it to 95 years
next time The Beatles catalogue looks set to fall into the public
domain, you're stuffed. Or at least, those who don't own copies of the
original vinyl and wish to abide by the law are stuffed. Not that you
can even legally copy your own vinyl for your own use yet.


It's not economics that keeps niche recordings off CD (or Spotify,
or ...). It's the arrogance of big record companies who simply can't
be bothered to do it. Talk to any number of small recording companies
who have _wanted_ to license the rights + masters from big companies
at commercial rates that would have delivered a small profit to both,
and what you find is that big recording companies who hold these
rights simply can't be bothered to put in the small effort to allow
others to monetise them.

A 25 year sound copyright term would have been a better move IMO.
Similar cuts for most other copyright terms would give a great boost
to most creative industries, education, on-line access etc.

Cheers,
David.

In article
,
wrote:



Now Sir Cliff and the record companies have successfully lobbied to
increase this to 70 years, and will doubtless increase it to 95 years
next time The Beatles catalogue looks set to fall into the public
domain, you're stuffed. Or at least, those who don't own copies of the
original vinyl and wish to abide by the law are stuffed. Not that you
can even legally copy your own vinyl for your own use yet.


It's not economics that keeps niche recordings off CD (or Spotify, or
...). It's the arrogance of big record companies who simply can't be
bothered to do it.

They also want to avoid having too many 'similar' (in terms of their
marketing view) items available at a time. So they bury some artists and
versions because they can then just press more copies of the limited range
they've decided to provide. Easier on stock control, etc, from their POV to
limit the choice.

The result is unfair to many artists by causing them to go unheard, and
maybe become forgotten. So losing out to suit the companies.

I know the companies argued that extending copyright would enable the
'little performers' to get more income. But the reality is that many were
paid a lump sum and so actually get nowt. The damage to them is their
buried reputation and the missed chance to become better known and make
their newer work sell.

Talk to any number of small recording companies who
have _wanted_ to license the rights + masters from big companies at
commercial rates that would have delivered a small profit to both, and
what you find is that big recording companies who hold these rights
simply can't be bothered to put in the small effort to allow others to
monetise them.

I can echo this from talking to some of the people I've known who have run
small specialist classical labels.

A 25 year sound copyright term would have been a better move IMO.
Similar cuts for most other copyright terms would give a great boost to
most creative industries, education, on-line access etc.

I agree. But money (i.e. big companies) talks so far as politicians are
concerned.

And look out for 'watermarking' of BD discs as well!

Slainte,

Jim

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