ANTI - pro audio
DjvartanCOM
"noise"/power electronics. something that drives away from everything that pro
audio stands for. do any of you find lo-fi interesting? i do .
vartan
Artie Turner
Just for the "record", the "pro" in rec.audio.pro is for "PROduction",
not "PROfessional." There are lots of audio professionals here
nonetheless. Good people, lots of audio savvy.
Some people here find lo-fi interesting in the abstract; some of them
crusade here to stamp out MP3s.
Artie
Kurt Riemann
Lo-Fi is very cool.
Lo-Fi is also an excuse for shitty audio when you are incapable of
anything better, either through gear limitations or lack of chops.
It's kinda like saying "I really like only using words made out of
letters that have only straight lines in 'em. It's so edgy." It's an
interesting concept, but the tool choice is limiting when you want to
say "I Love You" and can just say "I Lv Y."
I use it as a choice, but I like being able to do other things as
well. Contrasts are an important aspect to making it seem even MORE
Lo-Fi.
Kurt Riemann
John LeBlanc
"Artie Turner" <art...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3D713D89...@swbell.net...
> DjvartanCOM wrote:
> > well its kinda funny . i have a strong love for "pro audio". yet i also
do
> > "noise"/power electronics. something that drives away from everything
that pro
> > audio stands for. do any of you find lo-fi interesting? i do .
>
> Just for the "record", the "pro" in rec.audio.pro is for "PROduction",
> not "PROfessional."
Don't want to sound argumentative, but actually, the FAQ for rec.audio.pro
states, in part:
"This newsgroup exists for the discussion of issues and topics related to
professional audio engineering. "
(FWIW, the FAQ is an _incredible_ resource that really does cover the most
frequently asked questions in r.a.p.)
> some of them
> crusade here to stamp out MP3s.
I'd rather think that isn't the case, but you're no doubt correct. MP3 is a
usable format to shuttle sound files that are usually of inferior quality in
comparison to the source from which it is encoded. The problem is so many
people don't know what is "superior", so to them MP3 is "CD quality". Ouch.
John
Jny Vee
djvar...@aol.com (DjvartanCOM) wrote:
I'm sorry.. what is there about 'lofi' than means doing
'unprofessional' work?
> vartan
--
Perspective is vital to wisdom. It is indeed a good
thing to know that for every ELECTRIC LADYLAND there
were months/years/decades of tracking The Archies.
>> Help Keep The Net Emoticon Free! <<
Mark W
>> Just for the "record", the "pro" in rec.audio.pro is for
>> "PROduction", not "PROfessional."
>
>
> Don't want to sound argumentative, but actually, the FAQ for
> rec.audio.pro states, in part:
>
> "This newsgroup exists for the discussion of issues and topics related
> to professional audio engineering. "
THANK YOU! He had corrected me too. I'm glad somebody had enough brains to
go look at the FAQ and determine the truth.
Regards,
Mark
--
http://www.marktaw.com/
Carey Carlan
>
> In article <20020901175102...@mb-mv.aol.com>,
> djvar...@aol.com (DjvartanCOM) wrote:
>
> > well its kinda funny . i have a strong love for "pro audio". yet i also do
> > "noise"/power electronics. something that drives away from everything that pro
> > audio stands for. do any of you find lo-fi interesting? i do .
>
> I'm sorry.. what is there about 'lofi' than means doing
> 'unprofessional' work?
Because the whole concept of "fidelity" is central to good recording? At least
in what I do.
Ted Spencer
> I'm sorry.. what is there about 'lofi' than means doing
> 'unprofessional' work?
Carey Carlan wrote:
>the whole concept of "fidelity" is central to good recording? At least
>in what I do.
Me too, mostly, but creatively "fucking up the sound" is also a very valid
approach just as cubism "fucked up" realism in modern art to great effect.
This is a different thing from a recording that's lo-fi because the people
making it are rank amateurs, however. The great cubists (like Picasso) all
started out as highly trained artists in the conventional sense before they
deconstructed things. The same idea makes sense in audio recording too.
Ted Spencer, NYC
"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown
DjvartanCOM
recording.
Roger W. Norman
what you want to do is a choice. One needs to be grown out of, and the
other needs to be grown into.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"DjvartanCOM" <djvar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020901175102...@mb-mv.aol.com...
Roger W. Norman
Lo-Fi is NOT my baliwick, but it is for some, and as long as it's a choice
and not a limitation, that's fine. If it's a limitation then one would hope
that there's something better in the foreseeable future. I certainly didn't
want to stop a Lo-Fi, although I've kept all those old stomp boxes and wall
warts just in case! <g>
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"Carey Carlan" <gul...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3D737FAB...@hotmail.com...
Ted Spencer
>what you want to do is a choice. One needs to be grown out of, and the
>other needs to be grown into.
>Roger W. Norman
One of the most concise posts of yours I've ever read, Roger. Nicely put.
Jny Vee
<gul...@hotmail.com> wrote:
outside of the classical world (and maybe the bluegrass or the odd Paul
Gemignani recording), exactly WHERE does this happen? the constant
mystical fight for that 'sound' that is NOT what you hear standing in
front of the performer with yer ears, thru all sorts of combinations of
old and new and ancient
compressors/transformers/tubes/close-up-big-diaphragm-mics/level-locks/w
hathaveyou adn then mastered till it's crushed between a pair of
microsope slides and blwn up big hasn;t been about 'fidelity' for
years.
And then it gets listened to on bad walkman phones or a boombox...
fidelity? Nobody's GOOD ENOUGH anymore to want fidelity.
yeah all generalisatons are false, and this one moreso but... well...
hell...
the idea of recording and mixing to realise any particular atist's
vision has nothing to do with 'fidelity' to anything but some dream,
and EVERYTHING to do with being a professionally-focused and versatile
and eager aide in that task. George Martin brought his dramatic
results-oriented inventive ears to everything he did and, when
warrented, fought the EMI labcoats back away from 'fidelity' as they
knew it.
Justin Ulysses Morse
<pres...@aol.com> wrote:
> JnyVee wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry.. what is there about 'lofi' than means doing
> > 'unprofessional' work?
>
> Carey Carlan wrote:
>
> >the whole concept of "fidelity" is central to good recording? At least
> >in what I do.
>
> Me too, mostly, but creatively "fucking up the sound" is also a very valid
> approach just as cubism "fucked up" realism in modern art to great effect.
>
> This is a different thing from a recording that's lo-fi because the people
> making it are rank amateurs, however. The great cubists (like Picasso) all
> started out as highly trained artists in the conventional sense before they
> deconstructed things. The same idea makes sense in audio recording too.
On the other hand, my 6-year-old niece showed me a painting she did
this weekend and it amazed me and everyone in my family. If she had
auctioned it off on the spot, she would have made more money than I've
ever made from my fine arts degree. It's a beautiful painting. I
guess you'd call it "Lo-Fi" but it had all the magic of the master
Chinese watercolor landscape artists and then some. In fact, there are
many Chinese landscape artists who spent a lifetime hoping to
accomplish what my niece did on her first try. I don't know if she
could do it again though.
The first Ramones album was pretty amazing and accomplished things
other people spent a lifetime trying to capture. Then they made a
bunch more albums just like it and didn't progress much beyond that
first one. I think that's a little different from "lo fi" though.
I recorded a band called Tot 50 live to cassette in 1994 when they were
still in their formative phase and I didn't really know how to record.
The recording is of low fidelity in the sense that it's noisy, and the
tones aren't true to what was happening technically during the
performance. The bandwidth is narrow and there are technical flaws all
over the place. But the record's fidelity to the spirit of the session
and to the energy of the band at that time is very high. Even though
there are only a handful of people who have heard the record beyond
some very brief airplay on a college station, I consider it one of the
great classic albums of the 1990s.
Now that I do know how to record, I don't measure my success on the
basis of how closely my finished products match the polish of a major
label release or a minor label audiophile release or any other albums
in particular. There are elements of the sounds of many different
albums of different kinds, some well recorded and some poorly recorded,
that I might incorporate into my sound. But I'm not consciously trying
to avoid "fidelity" any more than I'm trying to achieve it. I try for
the sounds I imagine the album having. When I succeed, I'm happy.
When I don't suceed, I usually try to keep working. I'm really glad I
don't have to make my records sound like anything other than what the
artist and I decide it should sound like. My job pays a lot less as a
result but it's also a hell of a lot more enjoyable than it would be if
I had to follow somebody else's idea of fidelity.
ulysses
Mark Williams
> In article <20020901175102...@mb-mv.aol.com>,
> djvar...@aol.com (DjvartanCOM) wrote:
>
> > well its kinda funny . i have a strong love for "pro audio". yet i also do
> > "noise"/power electronics. something that drives away from everything that pro
> > audio stands for. do any of you find lo-fi interesting? i do .
>
> I'm sorry.. what is there about 'lofi' than means doing
> 'unprofessional' work?
>
equipment (quantity AND quality) and exper/ience/ertise I'm most
definitely in the "lo-fi" camp. BUT, that doesn't mean that I don't
strive for the best results I can achieve; given my limitations. In .
>
this respect someone I particularly admire is F. M. Cornog (the guy
behind the band East River Pipe), who's also overcome technical
limitations to make some fine records. Also, with regards to the
creative use of the "lo-fi" format, you might like to check out Guided
By Voices (particularly the Scat and Matador releases) and early
Sebadoh. Regards
Mark. >
> vartan
Justin Ulysses Morse
<rno...@starpower.net> wrote:
> Lo-Fi because that's all you can do is a limitation. Lo-Fi because it's
> what you want to do is a choice. One needs to be grown out of, and the
> other needs to be grown into.
Furthermore, Lo-Fi because it's what you want to do in reaction to the
rest of the recording industry is also a limitation. Lo-Fi because
those particular sounds are your pure vision on that occasion, when the
concept leaves your head and you just make records sound the way you
want them to...that's freedom.
ulysses
Roger W. Norman
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"Ted Spencer" <pres...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020902124757...@mb-mv.aol.com...
Roger W. Norman
it's mine, even in my little dungeon of a studio. Just as unfortunate, I
hardly ever work on my own music any more, but it's a personal limitation.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"Justin Ulysses Morse" <uly...@rollmusic.com> wrote in message
news:030920020242069887%uly...@rollmusic.com...
Carey Carlan
>
> the idea of recording and mixing to realise any particular atist's
> vision has nothing to do with 'fidelity' to anything but some dream,
> and EVERYTHING to do with being a professionally-focused and versatile
> and eager aide in that task. George Martin brought his dramatic
> results-oriented inventive ears to everything he did and, when
> warrented, fought the EMI labcoats back away from 'fidelity' as they
> knew it.
> --
> Perspective is vital to wisdom. It is indeed a good
> thing to know that for every ELECTRIC LADYLAND there
> were months/years/decades of tracking The Archies.
> >> Help Keep The Net Emoticon Free! <<
"That depends on what the definition of 'is' is."
I see where we part terms.
Fidelity means "faithful to the original". If you're true to the artist's
vision aren't you being faithful? HiFi is achieving the "right" sound, even if
that sound is scratchy and noisy.
I regularly record a Christian band (on their third year of making this album,
but it's due out Real Soon Now) and do all those things I dislike like
compression and EQ, cranking up the "tape saturation" on the Spider for the
guitar effects and the like. Not accurate, but very HiFi.
I suspect you're doing the same thing.
Jny Vee
<gul...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jny Vee wrote:
> >
> > the idea of recording and mixing to realise any particular atist's
> > vision has nothing to do with 'fidelity' to anything but some dream,
> > and EVERYTHING to do with being a professionally-focused and versatile
> > and eager aide in that task. George Martin brought his dramatic
> > results-oriented inventive ears to everything he did and, when
> > warrented, fought the EMI labcoats back away from 'fidelity' as they
> > knew it.
> > --
> > Perspective is vital to wisdom. It is indeed a good
> > thing to know that for every ELECTRIC LADYLAND there
> > were months/years/decades of tracking The Archies.
> > >> Help Keep The Net Emoticon Free! <<
>
> "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is."
>
> I see where we part terms.
>
> Fidelity means "faithful to the original". If you're true to the artist's
> vision aren't you being faithful?
i do believe I said that
> HiFi is achieving the "right" sound, even
> if
> that sound is scratchy and noisy.
Abslolutely no. the term HiFi and High Fidelity hav ea traditional and
vey specific meaning. They refer to reproducing somethign as accurately
as possible and set their own contect with regards to exceptionally
honest mics/recording-chains/ speakers/rooms/listeneing situations so
that WHATEVER happened at the mic is resembled VERY closely by what
hits your ears. That's HiFi. that's not what mosy pop music production
gives even a small damn about. It's pretty much been relegated to
classical, jazz, acoustic music and some pop music artists who like
that approach (STING, Lyle Lovett and KD Lang come to mind).
'Achieving the "right" sound' is the responsibility of the ARTIST adn
whomever they employ to assist them in realising a sonic vision. It
could be Sting with the appropriate result, it could be THE
PROPELLORHEADS, opr CHEMICAL BROS with -that- appropriate result, it
could be ANYTHING. The only place 'HiFi' enters THAT picture is in the
playback system and if the listener cares to try and recreate EXACTLY
what the artist created as heard on good monitors in the mix phase of
teh project... of course even THAT goes to hell in a handbasket if the
artist INTENDS for teh work to be heard on a boombox, or especially
headphones, teh latter case being COMPLETELY wrong and non-HiFi if
played on speakers of ANY kind...
But these are all special cases and we indeed reliably know that HiFi
is an aesthetic that mandates an exceptionally accurate chain of
electronics and transducers. If Noisy And Scratch are the artost's
vision, then that must be accomplished in the production step so that
the final result when played back on any reasonably accurate system,
NOISY AND SCRATCHY is what comes out. First example comes to mind is
Tom Wait's interlretation of "THE WORK SONG" from SNOW WHITE & THE 7
DWARVES on Wilmer's STAY AWAKE album... a magnificent example of how
this gets done.
>
> I regularly record a Christian band (on their third year of making this album,
> but it's due out Real Soon Now) and do all those things I dislike like
> compression and EQ, cranking up the "tape saturation" on the Spider for the
> guitar effects and the like. Not accurate, but very HiFi.
>
> I suspect you're doing the same thing.
Jon Best
and lets the song connect with the listener as closely as possible. This is
hard to remember, though, sometimes.
It's just that people who don't know *how* to make it hi-fi, lo-fi, mid-fi,
and all the other flavors of recording are painting with a limited palette
of colors, and may only luck into a good recording, or only get good
recordings that benefit from their limited knowledge.
If all you have is a screwdriver, you're going to do great on the threaded
songs. It's the nuts and bolts songs that are going to throw you.
"DjvartanCOM" <djvar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020902121923...@mb-fp.aol.com...
Jon Erickson
I had a long spiel to write about lo-fi but decided to simply call it
passe at the current moment. Ive done probably more intentional lo-fi
recording than most and it just feels like its time to move on. We
are entering the enlightenment and during this enlightenment your
average musician will, among many other things, have a basic
understanding of impedance and will be proud of this knowledge.
Jon Erickson