Legality of offering transcription service from LP to digital
Jack
vinyl and tape to CD level digital. Can I legally offer this as a
service to others? I have a friend who is into audio and he says it's
probably not legal. I am hoping that it falls under fair use for people
to pay an individual to have their vinyl transcribed to digital.
Has this area been addressed by courts?
Thanks,
Jack
Mike Rivers
> Can I legally offer this as a
> service to others? I have a friend who is into audio and he says it's
> probably not legal. I am hoping that it falls under fair use
"Fair use" has a very specific meaning, and it's not "the use that
seems fair to you and me." However, you are allowed to make a copy to
different media of a recording that you own. I believe that "a
recording that you own" would be inerpreted as a recording that your
client owns, and therefore you would be able to make a copy for him
without concern.
Where some engineers have found themselves in trouble is when they've
copied a portion of a recording for a client and then used that copy
in the client's production (as in "sampling").
Geoff
Kind of varies depending on which part of the world you are in too....
geoff
Nono
I guess that the moment you start making more copies of the same
recording for the same client, it becomes reproduction and mechanical
right should be paid.
Otherwise, at least, the client would be illegal and you would be
participant in an illegal activity.
I wonder though if, say, 50 clients come with their own copy of the
same recording for you to transfer and you decide to use one original
to make 50 CD's, one for each client. I imagine that the clients then
would be legit, but what about you who has reproduced fifty copies?
Norman.
Six String Stu
"Geoff" <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:2padnXY-zMqdnTXb...@giganews.com...
copying.
You preform service and complete transaction.
You don't need to fall into explaining why you have electronic copies on
your hard drive that you might not have the licensed media in storage.
Mark
so now I am curious...
how much do you think you can charge to transfer say an LP to CD or
MP3?
Mark
audioae...@gmail.com
have you tweaked your turntable / arm / cartridge / phono pre amp??
are you doing a cleaning of the lp prior to playing it, ie using a
Keith Monks cleaning machine?
are you just dumping the audio files to cd or are you processing the
files to remove any artifacts created ??
the software/hardware you are using, is it freeware / computer
soundcard or do you use a Cedar system??
Mike Rivers
> how much do you think you can charge to transfer say an LP to CD or
> MP3?
Depends on how long it is, but that sounds like about a $50/hour job
to me. This is why most people don't do it for a profit - they won't
get any customers other than "legitimate" ones like libraries or
historical archives.
Six String Stu
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:1185491290....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
sell this service.
It'd be nice to contract a project digitaly archiving a library. I guess the
job's main selling point would be the copyrite issue. Also the best
stumbling spot. lol
Scott Dorsey
That sounds kind of low but it seems like an okay entry level price for
someone with a decent turntable setup, some basic digital NR, good
monitoring so they can actually use the NR, and an entry level
record cleaning system like the Nitty Gritty or even a mid-range like the VPI.
If you don't have to deal with acetates or acoustic recordings, you can
live with a couple standard styli and maybe a half-dozen oddly-sized
ones. If you have to deal with acetates or acoustics, your investment
goes through the roof because of the stylus costs and the need for more
serious EQ than you get from an RIAA preamp and a Re-Equalizer. And
that translates to having to bill more.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
DC
> Depends on how long it is, but that sounds like about a $50/hour job
> to me. This is why most people don't do it for a profit - they won't
> get any customers other than "legitimate" ones like libraries or
> historical archives.
One of my jobs was working for a studio whose clients were major dance
companies. It was routine to record cuts from their albums, and make
leadered performance tapes at 15 ips and practice tapes at 7-1/2 ips.
Obviously, they were legally using the music in the performances. These
were big companies like Ailey, etc.
Michael Rempel
like it is $45 per album. No frills just the basics. I tell people to
ask their friends for the best copy of the album they collectively
own. 5 minimum 20 max per order. My mom got me started doing it with
her favorite records (for free of course), and now she sends her
friends over to get theirs done. I should charge more but little old
ladies know how to get to my soft side. And I copy cds (gasp) for them
if they show me they have a legit copy of the Album. I think I have
seen the same album cover a few times but I cant be certain. Hmmm. I
wonder....
No I dont do internet orders, so thanks for not asking.
Record cleaning? Yeah right. Not even cleaned in 1950 when they bought
em. Oh, yeah, and none of em get good styluses. I have 10 band
parametric EQ for that. yeah I know purists are scratching their eyes
out, complaining about velocity and articulation not frequency (you
idiot they say). I know, I just dont care. And my customers dont
either. At least they dont enough to pay more. Anything that has to
suffer by going through a phase distorting capacitor bucket like the
RIAA EQ can go through a little more of mine too.
As for filtering, Goldwave is surprisingly good for such a cheap
thing. The De-noise algorithm is no where near as good as cedar, but
who care$?
Michael
Steve House
no problem. But if they bring it to you and you charge them a fee to
make the copy for them, then you are actually in the business of
selling copies of the original. In other words, you are doing exactly
what the pirate does, making copies and selling them on the market.
The only difference between what you're doing and the guy at the
corner market who is selling pirated CDs and DVDs from under the
counter is that you have a smaller customer base than he does. But
you are doing the same thing - creating copies and making a profit by
selling them.
andy M
> you are actually in the business of
> selling copies of the original.
.....
> But you are doing the same thing - creating copies and making a profit by
> selling them.
As someone else in this thread mentioned, the exact legal status of
such actions will vary according to your geographic location and local
laws, but I very much doubt that there is a western democracy where
your interpretation is correct.
Quite clearly the OP is *not* manufacturing and selling copies, but
providing a service. In most areas of Europe, making and possessing a
digital copy of a work is not illegal, even more so if you actually
own an original version. In Germany at the moment, making digital
copies of *digital* media is illegal if you have to disable "an
effective copy protection system" to do it (and yes, that really is
as vague as it sounds). Making and owning digital or analogue copies
of analogue sources for your own use is expressly allowed, as is
giving your family and close friends a copy (German courts have set
the number of seven copies as being reasonable) for private use.
In Europe you can perfectly legally provide a digitalisation service
for copyrighted analogue media. Keeping a copy of a work you had
copied as a service on your HDD would be dodgy but you would probably
get away with it if you had a good defense in court. Making *further*
copies and distributing them to strangers, especially for sale, would
be piracy.
andy M
Scott Dorsey
>Record cleaning? Yeah right. Not even cleaned in 1950 when they bought
>em. Oh, yeah, and none of em get good styluses. I have 10 band
>parametric EQ for that. yeah I know purists are scratching their eyes
>out, complaining about velocity and articulation not frequency (you
>idiot they say). I know, I just dont care. And my customers dont
>either. At least they dont enough to pay more. Anything that has to
>suffer by going through a phase distorting capacitor bucket like the
>RIAA EQ can go through a little more of mine too.
Spend a hundred bucks and buy a used Nitty Gritty machine. You will
find you save a lot of time in the long run using the noise reduction
stuff.
Also, get some aloconox or at least Dr. Bronner's Baby Castile Soap to
pre-clean the most grubby records in the sink.
>As for filtering, Goldwave is surprisingly good for such a cheap
>thing. The De-noise algorithm is no where near as good as cedar, but
>who care$?
The key is to get the thing clean and the playback solid, so you don't
need to do much reduction after the fact. The more time you spend doing
good prep work, the less time and money you'll need to spend doing noise
removal.
Mark
> My mom n pop needle drop to cd with cheap de-click and EQ if I feel
> like it is $45 per album. No frills just the basics. I tell people to
> ask their friends for the best copy of the album they collectively
This sounds like an interesting line but I don't get the economics of
it.
Why would someone pay you $45 to $50 to copy an album onto CD when
they can buy a new CD for less. Almost every record is now avaialbe
on CD.
Are these rare albums that are not avaialbe in CD?
Mark
Deputy Dumbya Dawg
sound like the LP version you have.
Even LP's manufactured from similar time periods sound
different because the reproduction devices wore out and disks
that were pressed while the stamper was new sound different
from those that were pressed at the end of the stampers life
and depending on economies and demands some stampers may have
been run longer then their life dictated. We are talking like
quantities of 2-8 thousand life of a stamper.
Then stampers were made from mothers which wore out too. And
mothers were made from lacquers which were sort of a mixdown
by a mastering engineer and he may have had to make several -
each lacquer possibly different from the last.
And the master tape was wearing out and there was only one of
them.
When you think about how many stampers and presses were
involved in production of platinum selling albums the
possibilities for screwing up are endless.
And this is all before you open the wrapper on the record you
bought at the store.
Then add to that re issues and re masters.
Some people just want to hear their vinyl in the car like they
heard it in their home.
peace
dawg
"Mark" <mako...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185549290.7...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Richard Crowley
> If your client makes a copy of their album for their own personal use,
> no problem. But if they bring it to you and you charge them a fee to
> make the copy for them, then you are actually in the business of
> selling copies of the original. In other words, you are doing exactly
> what the pirate does, making copies and selling them on the market.
No, you are NOT "doing exactly what the pirate does". The pirate
takes a single original (legitimate or not) and makes many un-
authorized copies, pocketing the $$ that should have gone to the
rights-holders (composers, performers, producers, etc.)
Making personal-use, one-for-one copies of audio recordings
was explicitly authorized by law. The debate here is whether it
is legal to pay a 3rd party to perform the labor of making the
copy.
> The only difference between what you're doing and the guy at the
> corner market who is selling pirated CDs and DVDs from under the
> counter is that you have a smaller customer base than he does. But
> you are doing the same thing - creating copies and making a profit by
> selling them.
You don't appear to grasp the big picture here.
Or you are unfamiliar with the law (at least in the US,
but perhaps you are writing from some other POV.)
Jack
I would like to think that I can get $30 an LP for cleaning,
transcribing, splitting into tracks and burning to CDR with no
processing. Of course, this would only be cost effective to people whose
LPs have not been re-issued on CD.
Jack
I could always run the original file through a high pass digital filter
set at 10 hz. This would completely change the digital file but leave
the sound intact. I imagine that a file could be processed 50 times in
in succession in this fashion without degrading the sound. This way,
each customer would get a different file with exactly the same sound and
I could lie and say I recorded each individual LP. I could also vary the
size of the files given to each customer without much trouble... at
least with less trouble than re-transcribing the LP.
But we are discussing in the realm of the highly hypothetical. If fifty
people came to the same individual with the same LP to transcribe,
chances are that LP has already been re-issued on CD.
Scott Dorsey
>
>I would like to think that I can get $30 an LP for cleaning,
>transcribing, splitting into tracks and burning to CDR with no
>processing. Of course, this would only be cost effective to people whose
>LPs have not been re-issued on CD.
That's almost a two-hour job to do carefully. At that rate, you can't
afford to eat.
Ty Ford
(in article <1185536373....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>):
When I take published versions of my articles into Kinko's to get them
photocopies for framing, I usually have to identify myself as the author
before they will make copies.
Regards,
Ty Ford
--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU
Steve House
regarding the exact situation of copying printed matter brought to
them by their customers for the customer's personal use. I know that
in the US or Canada if you take a photo from a magazine, for instance,
to your local copy shop and ask them to blow it up to make a poster of
it for you, they will refuse on the grounds it is illegal for them to
copy any copyright material, even just one copy of material you own
for your own personal use. So how does offering a service copying
audio material differ from that? The media is different but process
is the same.
Hmmmm ... it's illegal to disable an "effective copy protection
system" but isn't the fact that you are even ABLE to disable it mean
that it's NOT an effective copy protection system by definition? A
protection system that can be defeated is a very INeffective
protection system indeed! LOL
Steve House
copy of a copyrighted work for a third party in return for a fee for
doing so is exactly the basis on the Kinko's decision that I and Ty
have referred to.
Romeo Rondeau
The other method is to take it in at night, those flunky's will copy
anything :-)
Richard Crowley
> Yet the notion that it actually is copyright infringment to make a
> copy of a copyrighted work for a third party in return for a fee for
> doing so is exactly the basis on the Kinko's decision that I and Ty
> have referred to.
But copying *AUDIO* material for non-commercial, private use
was *EXPLICITLY PERMITTED* by the "Audio Home Recording
Act" of the US Congress in 1992. There is no equivalent for
making copies of photos from magazines, etc. etc. etc. that
I am aware of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
Note that debate continues whether the subsequent DMCA
(Digital Millenium Copyright Act) of 1998 takes away this
right.
Lumpy
> But copying *AUDIO* material for non-commercial, private use
> was *EXPLICITLY PERMITTED* by the "Audio Home Recording
> Act" of the US Congress in 1992...
I've copied all of the Beatles recordings onto mp3.
I'll sell them to anyone that wants them but they
have to promise to only listen to them in their
home.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
www.lumpymusic.com
Richard Crowley
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>> But copying *AUDIO* material for non-commercial, private use
>> was *EXPLICITLY PERMITTED* by the "Audio Home Recording
>> Act" of the US Congress in 1992...
>
> I've copied all of the Beatles recordings onto mp3.
> I'll sell them to anyone that wants them but they
> have to promise to only listen to them in their
> home.
Was there some point to your posting?
Your offer is neither "non-commercial" nor "private"
and is not covered by the AHRA.
Lumpy
Richard Crowley wrote:
> > > But copying *AUDIO* material for non-commercial, private use
> > > was *EXPLICITLY PERMITTED* by the "Audio Home Recording
> > > Act" of the US Congress in 1992...
Lumpy:
> > I've copied all of the Beatles recordings onto mp3.
> > I'll sell them to anyone that wants them but they
> > have to promise to only listen to them in their
> > home.
Richard Crowley wrote:
> Was there some point to your posting?
> Your offer is neither "non-commercial" nor "private"
> and is not covered by the AHRA.
Man, have you been seriously wooshed!
Steve House
"private, non-commerical" copying, meaning that it's legal for you to
personally make a copy of a CD you own so you can take it with you in
the car without risklng loss of your original. But when you are in
the business of making copies, you are not making "private,
non-commercial copies." Just the opposite, you are most definitely
making copies for commercial sale and profit, the very definition of
what a commercial copy would be. And while it's propbably for your
customer's private use, it's not for YOUR OWN personal private use. So
while the law permits the owner of the recording to personally make a
private, non-commercial copy for his own use, an audio duplication
business is doing just the opposite of that - making commercial,
copies for sale to the public. The fact that the customer is bringing
in the source recording instead of the duplicator obtaining it himself
on the open market is irrelevant.
Ty Ford
(in article <5gvf0gF...@mid.individual.net>):
Wasn't the Napster argument judged invalid?
Ty Ford
(in article <q23ma3tspdu2fmce3...@4ax.com>):
> Yep, that's true and I don't debate that. But the exclusion is for
> "private, non-commerical" copying, meaning that it's legal for you to
> personally make a copy of a CD you own so you can take it with you in
> the car without risklng loss of your original. But when you are in
> the business of making copies, you are not making "private,
> non-commercial copies." Just the opposite, you are most definitely
> making copies for commercial sale and profit, the very definition of
> what a commercial copy would be. And while it's propbably for your
> customer's private use, it's not for YOUR OWN personal private use. So
> while the law permits the owner of the recording to personally make a
> private, non-commercial copy for his own use, an audio duplication
> business is doing just the opposite of that - making commercial,
> copies for sale to the public. The fact that the customer is bringing
> in the source recording instead of the duplicator obtaining it himself
> on the open market is irrelevant.
Ah, so you "rent" the gear to your customer and say, "Yes, come in and I'll
show you which button to press on my gear."
Regards,
Ty
Steve House
they wouldn't copy them for me but no one would stop me from doing it
myself with the coin operated copy machine that's over by their front
window. Sure wish there was some common sense in the law.
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:44:19 -0400, Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Mike Rivers
> This sounds like an interesting line but I don't get the economics of
> it.
>
> Why would someone pay you $45 to $50 to copy an album onto CD when
> they can buy a new CD for less. Almost every record is now avaialbe
> on CD.
"Would pay" and "Almost" are the operative words here. Most people
would not pay that much to get an LP copied unless it was not
available on CD and they really, really wanted a CD copy badly. And I
suspect that absolutely nobody would pay $50 a piece to get a whole
wall full or LPs copied.
People expect this to be cheap, but most people who are willing to do
anything beyond drop the needle don't want to do the job, so they try
to discourage the work. A $5 copy is a good modern day substitute for
a teen ager mowing the lawn to make movie money.
Jack
> Yep, that's true and I don't debate that. But the exclusion is for
> "private, non-commerical" copying, meaning that it's legal for you to
> personally make a copy of a CD you own so you can take it with you in
> the car without risklng loss of your original. But when you are in
> the business of making copies, you are not making "private,
> non-commercial copies." Just the opposite, you are most definitely
> making copies for commercial sale and profit, the very definition of
> what a commercial copy would be. And while it's propbably for your
> customer's private use, it's not for YOUR OWN personal private use. So
> while the law permits the owner of the recording to personally make a
> private, non-commercial copy for his own use, an audio duplication
> business is doing just the opposite of that - making commercial,
> copies for sale to the public. The fact that the customer is bringing
> in the source recording instead of the duplicator obtaining it himself
> on the open market is irrelevant.
What if you provided the equipment and let the customer lower the needle?
Mike Rivers
> Kind of like if I took some of your published articles in to Kinko's
> they wouldn't copy them for me but no one would stop me from doing it
> myself with the coin operated copy machine that's over by their front
> window. Sure wish there was some common sense in the law.
The fact that nobody would stop you from copying it yourself doesn't
mean that it's any more legal. Actually, there are legitimate and
legal uses for a copy and they're specified in the (US, I guess I have
to say) copy right law. Thing is that Kinko's doesn't want to risk
being involved in a lawsuit so they instruct the employees to turn
down work that's questionable. If you asked them to copy a few
selected pages, they'd do it, but not the whole book. They may or may
not copy a whole article from a magazine.
I do know that there are "mystery shoppers" who bring projects to
Kinko's that would represent copyright violations if reproduced. This
is why they're on their toes there. I've heard people in the copy shop
at my local Kinko's talk about them They can usually spot them because
of the kind of job that's requested, but they don't take chances.
William Sommerwerck
why is not legal for someone else to do the work for said owner, and be paid
for the service?
If a magazine asked me to photograph a copyrighted painting -- "American
Gothic", say -- for inclusion in their magazine, what would be illegal or
immoral about the magazine paying me for my work?
Steve House
people trying creative workarounds (or creative rationalizations) to
get around the law.
Steve House
you're an employee, the burden is on them. But if you're an
independent vendor, you have made a copy of a copyrighted work and
sold the copy to another party.
"American Gothic" may be in the public domain by now. It was first
exhibited in 1930 and I don't know offhand the copyright lifespan that
would apply to it. If it is in the public domain, using that work as
an example gets more interesting - if you photograph the original
painting for your client you're probably completely legal. But if you
copy someone else's original photograph of the painting such as
reproduced on the Art Institute of Chicago web site, you have probably
violated that photographer's copyright to his image. Go figure! Or
for music, Beethoven's 9th is certainly in the public domain. But a
recently published conductor's score of a particular arrangement of
"Ode To Joy" is still going to be copyright.
William Sommerwerck
> vendor. If you're an employee, the burden is on them. But if
> you're an independent vendor, you have made a copy of a
> copyrighted work and sold the copy to another party.
But I haven't sold the copy -- I've sold my services in making the copy. In
this particular case, it's assumed the magazine has obtained the right to
print the copyrighted work. (I should have made that clear.)
Lumpy
> If it's legal for the owner to copy a work -- strictly for their own
> use -- why is not legal for someone else to do the work for said
> owner, and be paid for the service?
For the same reason that my earlier satirical post,
the humor of which was apparently lost on at least
one reader, tried to exemplify.
You record "I'll See You In My Dreams" on your bagpipes.
You offer to sell your recording on eBay, CDBaby, etc.
I come along and make a recording of that CD and sell it
to someone for their "private use". And I sell it to
someone else, and someone else, and someone else.
I've essentially taken your intellectual property,
duplicated it and distributed it. That interferes
with your ability to profit from the work you've
done, making the recording.
Steve House
source of confusion and I think you are mistaken in that notion. If
the client owned all the equipment, blank discs, etc and all you did
was show up on his site and operate the equipment in exchange for an
hourly wage, then you'd be correct. But what has actually happened
is the client has requested that you, an independent vendor of audio
CDs, manufacture a custom disc containing some customer-specified
content which he then purchased from you. You were not paid a wage
for services. Rather you manufactured a customized, limited
production run, product which you then sold to your client.
Don Pearce
dot ca> wrote:
>AFAIK, the belief that you sold your services and not a product is the
>source of confusion and I think you are mistaken in that notion. If
>the client owned all the equipment, blank discs, etc and all you did
>was show up on his site and operate the equipment in exchange for an
>hourly wage, then you'd be correct. But what has actually happened
>is the client has requested that you, an independent vendor of audio
>CDs, manufacture a custom disc containing some customer-specified
>content which he then purchased from you. You were not paid a wage
>for services. Rather you manufactured a customized, limited
>production run, product which you then sold to your client.
>
No, you are wrong. In contract law what was done can either be a sale
or a sub-contract. If the copier advertised the item, which the
customer subsequently bought as a "catalogue" item, it was a sale, and
subject to the law of copyright. If, on the other hand, the copier did
not have this as a pre-existing item available to anybody, but was
commissioned against a specification, then his work was a subcontract,
and all he supplied was labour and raw material. The content of the
copy was effectively unknown and unimportant to him.
This was not a product which he produced and sold to his client.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Steve House
Kinkos case North American courts have held that the party physically
making the copy is the one who has violated the copyright except in
the case where that person is a bona fide employee acting within the
regular scope of their employment and at the direction of their
employer. (I am not a lawyer so I can't swear to that nor cite
specific case law but that is my understanding of the situation.) Note
that copyright violations are not dependent on whether or not the
resulting copy is sold or whether some other form of monetary gain is
realized or not - it is just as illegal to copy a CD and give it to
your friend as it is to sell the copy to a stranger. The violation is
in the act of making the copy itself and the details of the subsequent
disposition of the copy are irrelevant. The law here does explicitly
grant an exemption to allow someone to make a copy of a work that they
own for their own personal use but as soon as a third party gets
involved in making the copy that exemption no longer applies because
a) the person making the copy does not personally own the item being
copied and b) the person making the copy is not making it for his own
personal use. If your friend who doesn't own a burner brings a disk
over and asks your help and the use of your hardware to copy his CD,
that would probably be considered to fall within the exemption even if
it was actually you who physically loaded the disc and pushed the
buttons on his behalf. But if you're in the business of copying CDs
for whoever walks in off the street and are charging your customers a
fee to do so, and the copyright owner objects and sues, you will
probably have a much harder time prevailing in court. Come to think
of it, it might be argued that since you have no way of knowing what
your customer will do with his copy - perhaps he'll sell it or give it
away - the claim that you were justified in making the copy because it
falls under the heading of being made for his own "personal use" could
not be justified. Remember copyright violation is a civil action, not
criminal, and within the limitations imposed by binding precedents,
the law essentially says whatever the trial judge says the law says.
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:48:21 GMT, nos...@nospam.com (Don Pearce)
wrote:
Six String Stu
"Steve House" <filmmaker at cogeco dot ca> wrote in message
news:i80qa3t7jb48r7ets...@4ax.com...
I'm not sure I agree with it 100%, but you make a very valid point.
Geoff
> If your client makes a copy of their album for their own personal use,
> no problem. But if they bring it to you and you charge them a fee to
> selling copies of the original.
No, you are his agent and are on his behalf performing a technical duty.
You are selling your service, not the music. Assuming his copying is a
legimate fair use in the first place.
geoff
Jack
Interpretations range all over the map regarding the legality of this
matter. Of course, your interpretation is the one I lean towards. It
certainly makes sense.
Steve House
contractor or a vendor who provides services for a fee is not an
employee. If someone pays you to take their photograph or pimp out
their car or paint their garage or draft a contract for them or
transfer an LP to CD, or record an original song for them in your
stuudio, you are neither their employee nor acting as their agent,
especially if you offer similar services to anyone who walks through
their door. You are a merchant offering a product on the open market
and they are but one customer out of many who is purchasing that
product. The fact that said product might be primarily an intangible
service doesn't change that. Your dentist isn't acting as your agent
when he's cleaning your teeth, is he?
Your premis would only be true if the "client" set up a duplication
facility and hired you to be a staff employee paid a regular salary
that is subject to income tax withholding, accountable to his
supervision and working at his direction, evaluated with regular
performance reviews, etc, to operate it for him as part of the regular
course of your duties on his staff. In that case, you would be his
agent and the onus of adherence to the copyright laws would fall to
him. But a vendor of services is no more an employee than is a vendor
of tangible products.
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:09:11 +1200, "Geoff" <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz>
wrote:
audioae...@gmail.com
this legal argument is something that has been discussed within
the Association for Recorded Sound Collestions.
there is a whole lotta people there who offer just such sevices
and do so within the legal status od their subjective governments.
It is legal to provide such a service!
< http://www.arsc-audio.org/ >
< http://www.musiclibraryassoc.org/ >
Steve House
business is operating.
The real question is, do you have the personal assets to fork over the tens
or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees that you would have to pay
out of pocket to defend such an action if you started up such a small
business and were sued for copyright infringement? Do ya feel lucky? Well,
do ya?
...>
Geoff
> You are only his agent if you are his employee,
No . If I was his emplyee I would be his employee. An agent is somebody
appointed by somebody else for a particular purpose. Could be an employee or
somebody external.
geoff
Robert Orban
mako...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>On Jul 26, 10:57 pm, Michael Rempel <michaelrem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My mom n pop needle drop to cd with cheap de-click and EQ if I feel
>> like it is $45 per album. No frills just the basics. I tell people to
>> ask their friends for the best copy of the album they collectively
>> own. 5 minimum 20 max per order....
>
>This sounds like an interesting line but I don't get the economics of
>it.
>
>Why would someone pay you $45 to $50 to copy an album onto CD when
>they can buy a new CD for less. Almost every record is now avaialbe
>on CD.
>
Yes.
I've done about 100 transfers of late '60s LPs that were never re-
released on CD. My work flow is as follows:
1. Wet vacuum wash.
2. Digitize vinyl at 44.1 kHz/30 bit by playing through a hardware Cedar
de-clicker and Algorithmix Sound Laundry running om the PC. (SL has a
very nice continuous noise filter; I use a standard "vinyl" curve I've
developed and apply 10 dB of noise reduction. I also run a 30 Hz
highpass filter and a DC offset removal plug-in.) Listen carefully as
the digitization progresses and take notes of any problems, which are
most often clicks that the cedar unit misses and distorted "esses,"
either due to cutting problems or previously playback of the vinyl with
a worn or mistracking stylus. I also note if there are obvious problems
with tonal balance, excessive compression, etc, that can be improved by
sweetening.
(My playback equipment includes a Well-Tempered TT and arm, Shure V15
MxR, Nakamichi CA7 phono preamp, Lexicon 20/20 A/D, and a home theater
PC equipped with a Lynx card for monitoring. I also have a ELP laser
turntable, which I use for cuts that are unplayable by mechanical means
because of contamination that cannot be removed from the grooves.
Because the ELP playback is substantially noisier than mechanical
playback, I do not use it as my "first-line" turntable, although it
extracts an impressive amount of detail from the grooves.)
3. Edit recording using Diamond Cut DC6 Forensics restoration software.
Manually de-click as necessary. (DC6 allows you to edit in the
spectrogram domain. The DC6 Spectrogram view is invaluable for
identifying clicks that are completely invisible in the time domain.
It's also great for identifying problem "esses." )
3. If necessary, use selective 50 or 60 Hz comb filtering to remove hum
on the original masters. (It's surprising how many recordings of this
vintage have hum built-in, mostly from instrument amplifiers, although
I've encountered 3 or 4 records that have hum cut throughout them,
evidently due to mastering problems.)
4. If necessary, apply additional noise reduction to quiet sections of
the recording and to fade-outs.
5. Add digital fades to analog fades to remove audible noise at the end
of tracks.
6. Drop digital black over inter-cut bands.
7. Drop markers at the beginning of each track.
8. Manually de-ess if necessary. If the esses are distorted, I use
multiband compression with a very low threshold in the midrange to
attenuate difference-frequency IM distortion.
9. Sweeten as necessary. This often requires a bass boost, a dip in the
4 kHz range (to remove "cutting EQ" that was often applied), and
addition of an "exciter" effect to add some air and improve transient
impact.
10. Use multiband compression very lightly to suppress excess esses and
highs induced by the "exciter." In essence, this acts as a high-
frequency limiter, allowing low-level detail to remain while removing
harshness.
11. If appropriate, add light multiband expansion with a very low ratio
(1.10:1) to open up material that was excessively compressed in the
original mastering or production of the vinyl.
12. NEVER add additional peak limiting for the sake of loudness.
13. Quantize durations between markers to make the duration fit into an
integral number of CD frames.
14. Using the markers, break the recording up into individual files (one
per track) while automatically generating a CUE file that Nero can read.
15. Check the start of each file to make sure that the beginning is not
clipped off.
16. Using Nero, import the CUE file and burn the CD.
This series of steps generally takes about 2 hours per CD. I have gotten
some extremely positive feedback from collectors, so I like to think
that this effort is worth it.
Hint: through hard experience I've found that with recordings of this
vintage, it really pays to find sealed, unplayed copies even if one has
to wait for them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more.
There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late 60s, and
even one play through some of them could audibly damage the vinyl.
Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that
the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty
bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new
generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. But I find
incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the
audio quality of vinyl from that era.
Bob Orban
Mark
the answer is probably here
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
but I cannot find it
Mark
this]@ri.t-com.hr Edi Zubovic
<donot...@spamblock.com> wrote:
----------8<--------
-- While I have a quite different setup and workflow of Mr.
Orban's--by far not so sophisticated -- I would agree that a careful
preparation and playback at the analog side will spare a ton of
problems at the digital side. Washing even a never played vinyl record
whether by machine or _carefully_ by hand will renove many a nasty
click and swish (which is a worse kind of disturbance) right at the
start. This, in conjunction with a best tracking obtainable (yes,
Shure V15 VxmR does an excellent job here) can contribute to a CD
which you wouldn't ever think it has been transferred from a record.
A few days ago, a friend of mine, a retired engineer who worked entire
career at Jugoton, now Croatia Records, label which was a major record
pressing plant here, brought me some 20 LPs containing invaluable
material: a choice of recordings of all sorts, classic, opera,
narrative, jazz, dance music etc. which have been made in Croatia
since 1927 to the fifties. Some of LPs are test pressings and were
never released. I was delighted to receive this package and while he
asked me whether I could transfer only three of these records, I think
I'll maybe transfer all of them over the time. It's well worth the
effort, since these records were collectedmostly from private
collections because in the past, Croatian recorded heritage suffered
from various devastations and many, many recordings were lost forever,
for various reasons. So I think that these recordings are invaluable
and deserve to be digitized. This because on CD they will sound better
-- from case to case, since no 78 PM record is of the same quality but
all are sufficiently well recorded -- and this would be welcomed at
broadcast since it seems they are putting analog reproduction aside
and are using tape recorders and turntables only if they really have
to. A CD with such music free of major disturbances and clicks will be
more attractive to broadcast editors I hope. And yes, I'm doing this
for free and with whole lot of fun.
Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
Steve House
in exhange for a fee automatically becomes an agent of the person
paying for the service. That is simply not true. Your plumber is not
your agent.
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:27:13 +1200, "Geoff" <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz>
wrote:
audioae...@gmail.com
> You seem to be under the idea that anyone who is performing a service
> in exhange for a fee automatically becomes an agent of the person
> paying for the service. That is simply not true. Your plumber is not
> your agent.
you have postulated your position
do you have a law degree
why are there such professional sevices that do not have the bad
dreams you are mouthing
Steve House
your pipes, they automatically become your agent and can act and contract on
your behalf, on the one hand, and any legal responsibility for anything they
do while carrying out their services automatically transfers over to you on
the other? By that logic, if they have a traffic accident in their truck
while driving from their shop to your house, you would be liable for any
damages they caused. But in fact you're not because contracting with them
to perform a service for you does not make them your agent. Similarly, if
you offer a service of copying recordings to the general public, the
responsibility for insuring it's legal to do so lies with you, not with the
person requesting the copy.
Why such services exist? Perhaps the jurisdiction they're in casts a blind
eye in their direction, like the lipservice shown by China where copyright
is honoured more in the breach than in the adherence. Perhaps the
jurisdiction they're in actually permits such copying by statute - AFAIK it
wouldn't be legal in North America and I'd be surprised if it was legal in
the EU but laws differ from country to country and I have no way of knowing
what the situation might be in, say, Sierra Leone. Perhaps they're simply
flying under the radar and haven't come to the attention of copyright owners
as of yet. Or maybe there have been a number of vendors sued and forced to
cease and desist but have had non-disclosure provisions in the conditions of
settlement so we haven't heard about 'em - that's a very common occurrence
with wedding videographers that have been caught using unlicensed music.
The OP asked if it was legal to offer it as part of their business, not if
they could get away with it. AFAIK, it is not legal but they'd probably get
away with it if they stayed small and didn't flaunt it. On the other hand,
try to open a chain of disk copy kiosks in shopping malls around the country
or offer such a service with a big splashy site on the Web and I believe
you're likely to get a visit from a process server in short order. The
question then becomes, what does an honourable person do when confronted
with such a dilemma - do you obey the law or do you try to skate by?
It doesn't require a law degree to be aware of the laws that may affect
one's course of business.
<audioae...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185964684.1...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Mark
See also Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
the section Exemption from Infringement Actions
exceprt...
the Act's main purpose -- the facilitation of personal use. As the
Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of[the Act] is to ensure the
right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of
copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep.
102-294, at *86 (emphasis added). The Act does so through its home
taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. S 1008, which "protects all
noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical
recordings, " H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59.
so I think the key question is... if someone pays you to make one CD
copy of a record they own so they can listen to the CD in their
car... is that "noncommercial use"??
I think it is...but I'm not a laywer.
the "copying" may be commercial (you got paid for the labor), but
the USE of the material is non-commercial...
Mark
Jack
The copying by a third party may be commercial, but it does not result
in commercial 'gain' for the owner. Quite the opposite.
Bob Quintal
news:g9qma3dh8n8tim9no...@4ax.com:
> Beats me. All I know is the courts don't usually take too
> kindly to people trying creative workarounds (or creative
> rationalizations) to get around the law.
>
>
Copyright Law is a creative workaround to the Constitution.
--
Bob Quintal
PA is y I've altered my email address.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Steve House
wrote:
....
>The copying by a third party may be commercial, but it does not result
>in commercial 'gain' for the owner. Quite the opposite.
No it doesn't, but it DOES result in commerical gain for the person
actually making the copy and so the copy was made for a commerical
purpose. While receiving payment is not an element of copyright
infrigment, it would be arguable that the intent of the law is that if
anyone is to make any money from the act of copying, that right
belongs exclusively to the copyright owner and those whom he licenses.
Mark
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:15:26 -0700, Jack <jack6128NOS...@gmail.com>
and if the copy is made onto a consumer grade __AUDIO__ CD, then money
has been paid into the fund via the tarif imposed on blank audio CDs
for the very purpose of covering "home recording".
Mark
rcro...@xprt.net
> I come along and make a recording of that CD and sell it
> to someone for their "private use".
So far, likely defensible. The customer owns a legal
copy of the original recording (black vinyl, etc.) and
you made a one-for-one copy and returned both the
original and the copy to the customer.
> And I sell it to someone else, and someone else,
> and someone else.
And that clearly crosses the line between selling a
format-changing service, and commercially selling
copies of something to which you don't have the right.
> I've essentially taken your intellectual property,
> duplicated it and distributed it. That interferes
> with your ability to profit from the work you've
> done, making the recording.
Exactly.
rcro...@xprt.net
> Copyright Law is a creative workaround to the Constitution.
"[The Congress shall have Power...] To promote the Progress of
Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors
and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries" -- US Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8
Bob Quintal
news:1186127676.5...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Exactly. Science we still know today. But useful Arts, as
opposed to fine Arts, musical Arts, oratorial Arts,
terpsichoreal Arts.....
useful Arts at the time of drafting the Constitution meant
things like cabinetmaking, gunsmithing, tailoring...things we
now refer to collectively as Technology, a word not in the
dictionaries of the time.
Therefore the purpose of copyright is to promote Science and
Technology. Using Copyright to protect musical performance is a
violation of that purpose.
rcro...@xprt.net
> Therefore the purpose of copyright is to promote Science and
> Technology. Using Copyright to protect musical performance is a
> violation of that purpose.
Right. Since everyone knows that there was no literature, art,
or music in the 1700s when the Constitition was written.
Mark
Then why did the writers not mention "literature art and music"
explictly if they intened copyright to apply to them.
Mark
Steve House
similarly educated audience, who understood that the generic term
"Arts" encompassed the broad spectrum of cultural endeavors and didn't
feel they needed to elaborate on the details. They recognized that
literature, poetry, philosophy, music, rhetoric, the visual and
performing arts, etc were indeed extremely "useful" as being the
foundation of a cohesive and civilized culture. The same assumption
carries over today in many universities where the core program in
areas such as history, literature, chemistry, music, poetry etc is
taught in a division known as the "College of Arts and Sciences" or
some similar titled institution.
audioae...@gmail.com
> Perhaps because they were educated and cultured men writing for an
> similarly educated audience, who understood that the generic term
> "Arts" encompassed the broad spectrum of cultural endeavors and didn't
> feel they needed to elaborate on the details. They recognized that
> literature, poetry, philosophy, music, rhetoric, the visual and
> performing arts, etc were indeed extremely "useful" as being the
> foundation of a cohesive and civilized culture. The same assumption
> carries over today in many universities where the core program in
> areas such as history, literature, chemistry, music, poetry etc is
> taught in a division known as the "College of Arts and Sciences" or
> some similar titled institution.
College of Fine Arts Music, Theatre & Art
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>Therefore the purpose of copyright is to promote Science and
>Technology. Using Copyright to protect musical performance is a
>violation of that purpose.
An extension, not a violation.
Bob Quintal
> Perhaps because they were educated and cultured men writing
> for an similarly educated audience, who understood that the
> generic term "Arts" encompassed the broad spectrum of cultural
> endeavors and didn't feel they needed to elaborate on the
> details.
That's where you are absolutely wrong. Had they written Science
and Arts, it would mean what you say, but they specifically
included one category of Arts, And he word "useful" in hte
context of the Constitution is not in opposition of "useless",
but specifically a subset of Arts.
They recognized that literature, poetry, philosophy,
> music, rhetoric, the visual and performing arts, etc were
> indeed extremely "useful" as being the foundation of a
> cohesive and civilized culture.
The did not. Had they intended to include literature and poetry
they woiul have specified the literary Arts. If they meant
music, they would have spoecified musical Arts. visual arts are
referred the fine Arts.
The same assumption carries
> over today in many universities where the core program in
> areas such as history, literature, chemistry, music, poetry
> etc is taught in a division known as the "College of Arts and
> Sciences" or some similar titled institution.
Not in any university I know of. They teach history, literature
in the Faculty of Arts, chemistry and technology in the Faculty
of Science,
>
>
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:11:03 -0700, Mark <mako...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 3, 10:56 am, rcrow...@xprt.net wrote:
>>> On Aug 3, 4:40 am, Bob Quintal <rquin...@sPAmpatico.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Therefore the purpose of copyright is to promote Science
>>> > and Technology. Using Copyright to protect musical
>>> > performance is a violation of that purpose.
>>>
>>> Right. Since everyone knows that there was no literature,
>>> art, or music in the 1700s when the Constitition was
>>> written.
>>
>>Then why did the writers not mention "literature art and
>>music" explictly if they intened copyright to apply to them.
>>
>>Mark
>
--
Bob Quintal
news:4fm6b3dsp0pst89h2...@4ax.com:
No not an extension. The laws may have been passed as Copyright
laws, but they are trade and commerce laws, Their purpose is to
restrict trade to a select group, and it's not the authors.
Bob Quintal
@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
I don't catch your intent. Are you being sarcastic in support or
in contempt of my comments. There has been a degradation in
those Arts since the proliferation of copyright laws
Note that the inclusion of sheet music as a copyrightable
document didn't happen till the 1840s and that was driven by
publishers not composers. The inclusion of public performance
didn't happen until 188s, and that was driven by theatrical
producers, not by the playwrights.
The inmates against whom Copyright was intended to protect
(Printers and Publishers) are running the asylum.
Lumpy
> In The Netherlands the law is clear: You are allowed to make a copy of
> music for personal use, but you have to do it yourself. You can't do
> it for others. It is different for printed matter.
It's no different in the US. But those that "want" it
to be different are offering their interpretation.
Bottom line...
You come to my shop, pay me money, walk out with
a copy of intellectual property, it's a violation.
That intellectual property has now been copied and
distributed. And THAT is against the law in the US.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
www.lumpymusic.com
Lumpy
> the section Exemption from Infringement Actions
>
> exceprt...
>
> the Act's main purpose -- the facilitation of personal use. As the
> Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of[the Act] is to ensure the
> right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of
> copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep.
> 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added). The Act does so through its home
> taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. S 1008, which "protects all
> noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical
> recordings, " H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59.
>
>
> so I think the key question is... if someone pays you to make one CD
> copy of a record they own so they can listen to the CD in their
> car... is that "noncommercial use"??
>
> I think it is...but I'm not a laywer.
>
> the "copying" may be commercial (you got paid for the labor), but
> the USE of the material is non-commercial...
The statuatory language doesn't state "copies for noncommercial use".
It states "noncommercial copying". You can't get much more commercial
than coming to my business or hiring me as a contractor or employee
to make a copy.
If it were allowable for commercial organizations to make copies
for personal use, there would be a gazillion companies making copies
of a gazillion copyrighted records and selling them to people who
would "only use them in their home or car". The original napster
wouldn't have gotten shut down, etc.
If that were allowable all they'd have to do would be to
impose a fee to the commercial end user that is playing the
music. That's already done through the P.R.O's.
"Home Taping Exemption" means taping at home.
Not taping at a commercial business for eventual
listening at home.
Lumpy
You were the "OPERATION" game voice?
Yes. Take out wrenched ankle.
William Sommerwerck
> use". It states "noncommercial copying". You can't get much more
> commercial than coming to my business or hiring me as a contractor
> or employee to make a copy.
But the person making the copy -- of an item they don't themselves own or
possess -- isn't selling the copy, but the service required to make the
copy. How is the person making the copy any more or less "culpable" than the
company manufacturing the equipment that performs the copy?
The copy isn't a "commercial" copy, because the copier isn't selling it.
He's selling the service needed to produce a copy of an item possessed by
someone else.
A bricklayer is paid to lay bricks, which are usually owned by someone else.
Is the bricklayer "selling" the completed structure to the person who hired
him? Of course not.
Imagine a library with a copying machine you have to pay to use. By this
line of reasoning, using the machine to copy a few pages of a book you own
causes the library to break copyright law because they're being "hired" (by
virtue of making a pay-per-use copy machine publicly available) to do the
copying.
The simplest "solution" to this problem would be for the person desiring the
copy to purchase the blanks.
> If it were allowable for commercial organizations to make copies
> for personal use, there would be a gazillion companies making
> copies of a gazillion copyrighted records and selling them to
> people who would "only use them in their home or car". The
> original Napster wouldn't have gotten shut down, etc.
But that isn't what we're talking about. The copyright laws prohibit anyone
from even _giving away_ free copies of copyrighted material.
The issue is who is the legal possessor of the thing to be copied. The
possessor is responsible for the use to which the copies are put, not the
person making the copies or the companies that manufacture the hardware and
blanks.
Mike Rivers
> The statuatory language doesn't state "copies for noncommercial use".
> It states "noncommercial copying". You can't get much more commercial
> than coming to my business or hiring me as a contractor or employee
> to make a copy.
Yes you can, and you give an example in your next paragraph:
> If it were allowable for commercial organizations to make copies
> for personal use, there would be a gazillion companies making copies
> of a gazillion copyrighted records and selling them to people who
> would "only use them in their home or car".
The difference is that when you provide a copy service, you aren't
distributing a copy, you're doing the same thing that the person who
(presumably) owns the original would do if he had the time, skill,
equipment, and inclination to do that. It's a service, and one that
you normally provide to your clients. You take his original, you make
a copy, you give him back the original along with the copy, and you
collect your fee. When you record a song in your studio, you make a
copy in some playable form for the client, don't you? Same thing.
However, the "gazillion companies making copies of a gazillion
copyrighted records and selling them to people who ...." are doing
something else. They're creating a marketable product without having a
specific customer in mind, and then going out and finding that
customer, probably many customers willing to buy copies made from the
same origianl source. We call them "bootleggers" and they are indeed
prosecuted when caught.
James Perrett
<donot...@spamblock.com> wrote:
>
> 7. Drop markers at the beginning of each track.
>
...
>
> 13. Quantize durations between markers to make the duration fit into an
> integral number of CD frames.
>
> 14. Using the markers, break the recording up into individual files (one
> per track) while automatically generating a CUE file that Nero can read.
>
> 15. Check the start of each file to make sure that the beginning is not
> clipped off.
>
Bob - have you seen a piece of software called CD Wave? It will allow you
to place markers while auditioning the file at frame boundaries and
generate a cue sheet. This should speed up your process a little. There is
also no need to break up the recording into separate track files if you
are using Nero as Nero can burn multiple tracks from a single file if you
give it a suitable cue file.
CD Wave is available from http://www.cdwave.com
Cheers
James.
Scott Dorsey
>
>I've done about 100 transfers of late '60s LPs that were never re-
>released on CD. My work flow is as follows:
I found the discussion of your work flow interesting, because I think I
spend a lot more time trying to get the records clean and dealing with
the playback and less time with digital cleanup afterward.
>1. Wet vacuum wash.
A lot of the stuff that I get in here for transcription is too gunked up
for me to put it anywhere near the vacuum machine. It gets a water wash
with Alconox and a brush before it goes into the vacuum machine at the
very least.
Some of them get cleaned with naptha before the water wash. I have also
found the PVA glop to be effective at removing encrusted stuff at the
bottom of the groove, especially with styrene 45s.
I have an ultrasonic dunk tank but to be honest I don't use it for
anything but shellac any more.
Oh yeah, and I usually do a microscopic inspection, just so I have a clue
what I am in for.
>2. Digitize vinyl at 44.1 kHz/30 bit by playing through a hardware Cedar
>de-clicker and Algorithmix Sound Laundry running om the PC. (SL has a
>very nice continuous noise filter; I use a standard "vinyl" curve I've
>developed and apply 10 dB of noise reduction. I also run a 30 Hz
>highpass filter and a DC offset removal plug-in.) Listen carefully as
>the digitization progresses and take notes of any problems, which are
>most often clicks that the cedar unit misses and distorted "esses,"
>either due to cutting problems or previously playback of the vinyl with
>a worn or mistracking stylus. I also note if there are obvious problems
>with tonal balance, excessive compression, etc, that can be improved by
>sweetening.
I spend a lot of time fiddling with the arm and cartridge setup to reduce
that sibilance from mistracking. I see a lot of records cut with improper
VTA or with slightly cockeyed cutting styli, and I will try and match that
to get it to track as well as I can by ear. I have become a huge believer
in fineline styli in the last couple of years, because of the ability to
deal with that wear.
I have oversized and undersized LP styli, but to be honest the microline
stylus has always worked better than trying to manually find an undamaged
section of the groove on worn records.
I do not have a fix for worn styrene 45s, and they are _all_ worn.
I am curious why you have the CEDAR declicker but not the decrackler?
The way I look at it, click and pop removal is easy to do in software
or by hand... what makes the CEDAR kit wonderful is the decrackling which
removes surface noise in a way you can't do any other way.
>(My playback equipment includes a Well-Tempered TT and arm, Shure V15
>MxR, Nakamichi CA7 phono preamp, Lexicon 20/20 A/D, and a home theater
>PC equipped with a Lynx card for monitoring. I also have a ELP laser
>turntable, which I use for cuts that are unplayable by mechanical means
>because of contamination that cannot be removed from the grooves.
>Because the ELP playback is substantially noisier than mechanical
>playback, I do not use it as my "first-line" turntable, although it
>extracts an impressive amount of detail from the grooves.)
I tend to use the Sony MDR-V6 for monitoring, because it really exaggerates
mistracking problems. If I can get it to stop breaking up on the headphones,
it'll sound good anywhere.
I have access to a Finial at a local facility... and I feel the same way
you do about the ELP. It's an amazing thing for a certain class of
problem recordings.
>3. Edit recording using Diamond Cut DC6 Forensics restoration software.
>Manually de-click as necessary. (DC6 allows you to edit in the
>spectrogram domain. The DC6 Spectrogram view is invaluable for
>identifying clicks that are completely invisible in the time domain.
>It's also great for identifying problem "esses." )
Yup.
>3. If necessary, use selective 50 or 60 Hz comb filtering to remove hum
>on the original masters. (It's surprising how many recordings of this
>vintage have hum built-in, mostly from instrument amplifiers, although
>I've encountered 3 or 4 records that have hum cut throughout them,
>evidently due to mastering problems.)
My tendency for some of these is to leave the hum in, because it's part
of the original recording. This is especially the case for instrument
amp noise, rather than recording noise.
I encounter more recordings with rumble caused by too-rapid cooling of
the disc during pressing (often with visible striations!) than I do
severe 60 Hz hum.
>4. If necessary, apply additional noise reduction to quiet sections of
>the recording and to fade-outs.
>
>5. Add digital fades to analog fades to remove audible noise at the end
>of tracks.
>
>6. Drop digital black over inter-cut bands.
>
>7. Drop markers at the beginning of each track.
Bingo.
>8. Manually de-ess if necessary. If the esses are distorted, I use
>multiband compression with a very low threshold in the midrange to
>attenuate difference-frequency IM distortion.
How does this sound on a piano? While the mistracking on vocals is
annoying, on piano music it is absolutely excruciating. To be honest,
I don't do much to deal with it in post other than using a hardware
de-esser occasionally.
>9. Sweeten as necessary. This often requires a bass boost, a dip in the
>4 kHz range (to remove "cutting EQ" that was often applied), and
>addition of an "exciter" effect to add some air and improve transient
>impact.
>
>10. Use multiband compression very lightly to suppress excess esses and
>highs induced by the "exciter." In essence, this acts as a high-
>frequency limiter, allowing low-level detail to remain while removing
>harshness.
I tend to avoid this kind of thing as much as possible. I figure the
cutting engineer wanted it to sound the way he wanted it to sound (which
may not actually be true) and I feel bad touching it.
>11. If appropriate, add light multiband expansion with a very low ratio
>(1.10:1) to open up material that was excessively compressed in the
>original mastering or production of the vinyl.
>
>12. NEVER add additional peak limiting for the sake of loudness.
Again, I figure if it was squashed, it was done for a reason and it's
part of the artistic style. Often records got squashed just to make
them last longer, though... higher average levels mean they still have
good S/N even after being dropped on the floor a few times.
>13. Quantize durations between markers to make the duration fit into an
>integral number of CD frames.
>
>14. Using the markers, break the recording up into individual files (one
>per track) while automatically generating a CUE file that Nero can read.
>
>15. Check the start of each file to make sure that the beginning is not
>clipped off.
>
>16. Using Nero, import the CUE file and burn the CD.
>
>This series of steps generally takes about 2 hours per CD. I have gotten
>some extremely positive feedback from collectors, so I like to think
>that this effort is worth it.
Two hours seems pretty good, too.
>Hint: through hard experience I've found that with recordings of this
>vintage, it really pays to find sealed, unplayed copies even if one has
>to wait for them to show up on eBay and even if one has to pay more.
>There were a *lot* of bad phono playback systems in the late 60s, and
>even one play through some of them could audibly damage the vinyl.
Absolutely, and that goes for some of the phono playback systems even
being used today. And once the information is gone from the disc, it
is gone.
>Finally, after doing this a hundred times or so I have to observe that
>the audio quality of the run of the mill vinyl from that era was pretty
>bad. It got a lot better starting in mid-1969, probably because a new
>generation of disc cutters was just coming on line. But I find
>incomprehensible the affection that some people evidently have for the
>audio quality of vinyl from that era.
The good vinyl sounds really good. The bad vinyl sounds really bad.
It's sort of the same thing we have with CDs.
I started out cutting 45s for jukeboxes, without having any clue what I
was doing other than that it was important to use the settings that the
chief engineer told me to use. I have unplayed pressings of some of the
stuff I did back then and they sound just unbearably bad. I feel really
awful about having unleashed some of that stuff on the world.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
John Byrns
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for
> example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely
> virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
> standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given
> that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality
> audio.
Arny, every time I read one of your posts I get the impression that all
you listen to is the equipment and technology, and and that you rarely
listen to the music. There is much great and worthwhile music that
comes to us by way 78s, a format with even lower standards than the LPs
you so decry.
Your listing of Bob Orban's patents is very impressive, and I have
always admired and respected Bob's inventiveness and creativity. But
while several of Bob's inventions are indispensable, most of them are
sort of like guns, in that they are not always used for their intended
purpose and are also often used for evil, as they commonly are in
today's audio world.
Bob himself seems to espouse this philosophy of misuse in his post
describing the extensive processing he does to the sound of the original
LP when transferring it to digital. I would be happier with a basically
straight transfer from LP to digital, with the only special processing
applied being some modest declicking.
Regards,
John Byrns
--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
Bret Ludwig
> > It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for
> > example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely
> > virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
> > standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given
> > that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality
> > audio.
I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music made after
1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a vinyl release but the
original two track tape masters.
>
> Arny, every time I read one of your posts I get the impression that all
> you listen to is the equipment and technology, and and that you rarely
> listen to the music. There is much great and worthwhile music that
> comes to us by way 78s, a format with even lower standards than the LPs
> you so decry.
Yes, but the lack of fidelity from most pre-vinyl era disk recordings
interferes even more than vinyl with the music, because of the limited
bandwidth and high surface noise. Very few are good enough that, say,
radio would play them...even if radio played anything but dreck
anymore, which they don't.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
John Byrns said to SnottyBorg:
> > It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for
> Arny, every time I read one of your posts I get the impression that all
> you listen to is the equipment and technology, and and that you rarely
> listen to the music.
Well, naturally. Arnii has no procedures for "testing" music. He lives
to "test" equipment. All "tests" to date have prooved™ there is no
"relaibley percievable" difference between Krooger's audio krap and the
high-priced stuff Krooger can't afford.
> There is much great and worthwhile music that
> comes to us by way 78s, a format with even lower standards than the LPs
> you so decry.
"Music is irrelevant to audio."
-- A. Krooger (1998, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006)
Arny Krueger
news:byrnsj-71C4CB....@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
> In article <bNSdnbcn_vZT7Ejb...@comcast.com>,
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not
>> Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph
>> refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The
>> point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
>> standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing.
>> But even given that, the LP format still falls way short
>> of modern standards for quality audio.
> Arny, every time I read one of your posts I get the
> impression that all you listen to is the equipment and
> technology, and and that you rarely listen to the music.
John, it is just your prejudices and biases working overtime, it would seem.
> There is much great and worthwhile music that comes to us
> by way 78s, a format with even lower standards than the
> LPs you so decry.
Agreed, but that isn't what I was talking about. What's unclear about "the
LP format still falls way short
of modern standards for quality audio" .
Can you distinguish between audio and music?
I can.
> Your listing of Bob Orban's patents is very impressive,
> and I have always admired and respected Bob's
> inventiveness and creativity. But while several of Bob's
> inventions are indispensable, most of them are sort of
> like guns, in that they are not always used for their
> intended purpose and are also often used for evil, as
> they commonly are in today's audio world.
Agreed. But, I don't see mankind stopping the manufacture and development of
weapons, any time soon. And, when someone shoots someone else, rarely if
ever is the weapons manufacturer or developer held responsibile. If you want
to make up your own laws, be my guest but not my guide!
> Bob himself seems to espouse this philosophy of misuse in
> his post describing the extensive processing he does to
> the sound of the original LP when transferring it to
> digital.
That's a reach!
> I would be happier with a basically straight
> transfer from LP to digital, with the only special
> processing applied being some modest declicking.
I'd like to get away with that more often in the work I do. Trouble is, most
if not all of the LPs I end uptranscribing seem to need more processing than
that.
Arny Krueger
news:1188406519.9...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com
>>> It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not
>>> Stephen or Jen for example) that the second paragraph
>>> refers to undamaged, even completely virgin LPs. The
>>> point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very
>>> high standards for choosing and preparing LPs for
>>> digitizing. But even given that, the LP format still
>>> falls way short of modern standards for quality audio.
>
> I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music
> made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a
> vinyl release but the original two track tape masters.
Two track masters have been generally used since about a decade before 1965.
Bret Ludwig
>
> > I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music
> > made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a
> > vinyl release but the original two track tape masters.
>
> Two track masters have been generally used since about a decade before 1965.
Since most releases then were mono, they were one track masters.
Mono LPs were available until well into the rock era. And in fact
most people prefer mono Beatles and Stones LPs (of that era)
sonically.
Arny Krueger
>>> I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music
>>> made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a
>>> vinyl release but the original two track tape masters.
>> Two track masters have been generally used since about a
>> decade before 1965.
> Since most releases then were mono, they were one track
> masters.
Dirty little secret Bret - people were recording stereo for years before
stereo LPs became available.
> Mono LPs were available until well into the rock era.
Irrelevant to how they were recorded.
> And in fact most people prefer mono Beatles and
> Stones LPs (of that era) sonically.
OK, so their engineers didn't always know how to mix properly.
Say it to yourself as many times as it takes Bret - music and audio are two
different things that often converge, but it ain't necessarily so all of the
time.
Bret Ludwig
> >>> vinyl release but the original two track tape masters.
> >> Two track masters have been generally used since about a
> >> decade before 1965.
> > Since most releases then were mono, they were one track
> > masters.
>
> Dirty little secret Bret - people were recording stereo for years before
> stereo LPs became available.
Some did some didn't.
>
> > Mono LPs were available until well into the rock era.
>
> Irrelevant to how they were recorded.
>
> > And in fact most people prefer mono Beatles and
> > Stones LPs (of that era) sonically.
>
> OK, so their engineers didn't always know how to mix properly.
That's true.
Robert Casey
>
> I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music made after
> 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a vinyl release but the
> original two track tape masters.
>
This assumes that those tapes were kept in good enviroments all this
time. And that the tape was of good quality and was able to last
without chemical breakdown and such.
Scott Dorsey
And they weren't bulk-erased by the label in order to re-use the tape,
or shredded by the musician's angry ex-wife or misfiled in the archive
never to be seen again.
Mr.T
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:e7SdneLhrJgDMEjb...@comcast.com...
> > I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music
> > made after 1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a
> > vinyl release but the original two track tape masters.
>
> Two track masters have been generally used since about a decade before
1965.
But unless the owner of the tapes and/or copyright holder wishes to release
to CD, how is a simple LP owner going to get a hold of them?
Also another fact, I have copied an LP to CD for the original recording
artist, where the record label/recording studio had lost the original master
tapes. That is certainly not an isolated incident either, unfortunately.
MrT.
Robert Orban
byr...@sbcglobal.net says...
In my opinion (and that of my colleague Greg Ogonowski, an aficionado of
music from that era as well as an audio processing designer who is well
respected in the industry) the majority of popular music LPs from the late
'60s sound mediocre or worse. Because of a lack of standardized control room
monitoring and haphazard acoustic treatment, tonal balances from one LP to
the next were *grossly* (and unmusically) inconsistent. Many records had
sibilance distortion cut into them (I base this statement on the fact that I
have heard sibilance breakup during the first play of a surprising number of
virgin, factory-sealed LPs with a well set up Shure V15VXMR).
Sibilance distortion could be cut into the vinyl for several reasons.
"Acceleration limiters" of the era (like the Fairchild Conax) were crude at
best and not always used as required, and channel-strip de-essers were almost
unknown outside of cinema re-recording stages. So vocals in LPs of the era
tended to be boxy-sounding (although with natural sibilance balances) or to
be equalized to have more presence. The latter technique allowed sibilance to
sound clean on 15 ips and 30 ips master tapes (which have plenty of high
frequency headroom) but could cause major problems in cutting because the HF
headroom characteristic of vinyl (expressed in terms of cutting stylus
velocity) basically follows a 75 microsecond de-emphasis curve (i.e. -3 dB at
2122 Hz with a 6 dB/octave rolloff above that frequency), which is the high
frequency pole of RIAA playback EQ. I created the first Orban/Parasound de-
esser after watching mixers wrestle with the "vocal presence vs. sibilance"
problem. Admittedly, some engineers of the era coped reasonably well with the
presence/sibilance tradeoff, mostly by choice and placement of microphones,
but a surprising number did not. (My hat is off to Chuck Britz, who recorded
the Beach Boys at Capitol during this era.)
A surprising number of records from this era had hum cut on them, mostly from
instrument amplifiers (noise gates on individual mixer inputs were uncommon
in those days) or even from problems in the cutting chain. (The first time I
heard a major-label LP hum all the way through, including in the bands
between cuts, I could scarcely believe my ears.) A good restoration suite
will have a hum-removal comb filter available, which can be applied
selectively to the areas in the music where the hum is not psychoacoustically
masked by the music.
I have had a certain amount of personal experience engineering records in the
early '70s (with Beaver & Krause for Warner Bros.) and I recall inconsistent
control room monitoring environments, mediocre cutting chains that yielded
vinyl that sounded disappointing compared to the master tapes, and low
headroom recording tape that, combined with unavailability in many studios of
Dolby A noise reduction on the multitrack tape recorders, led to noise levels
on vinyl that were dominated by tape hiss. (We used Dolby A noise reduction
everywhere on all of the Warner Bros. B&K recordings, which paid off
particularly well when these were re-released on CD a number of years back
because they did not need aggressive single-ended noise reduction to sound
clean and quiet on CD.)
By 1980, the above limitations had disappeared. De-essers were widely used
during mixdown, noise reduction was available in every major studio for
tracking and mixing, monitors were calibrated, control room acoustics were
engineered instead of being catch-as-catch-can, and cutting chains had
improved immensely.
In 2007, people expect better sound than most pop music studios were able to
produce in the mid to late '60s. That is why my philosophy in transferring
LPs is to also remaster them to take advantage of signal processing tools
that engineers in the late '60s didn't have available. I know that some
people have a fetish for maintaining the original sound as much as possible,
but most folks who were actually studio engineers at the time have no
nostalgia for the technical limitations of the studios back in the day. As
for me, my transfers have gotten a lot of favorable comments from serious
collectors of obscure late '60s music. As far as I am concerned, the highest
praise I can get is "your transfer sounds like a good modern remastering of
the original master tape" (assuming, of course, that said "modern
remastering" does not include additional digital peak limiting, which I never
use in these transfers). To me, this requires a low, uncolored noise floor
and a spectral balance that allows the musical details to be heard clearly.
If I have done my job well, the music should appear to have snapped into
focus, no matter how murky or badly equalized the original LP sounded.
Percussion should sound punchy. Vocals should sound present but not sibilant.
The technical quality of the recording should never get in the way of the
music.
Bob Orban
Mr.T
> > Two track masters have been generally used since about a decade before
1965.
>
> Since most releases then were mono, they were one track masters.
> Mono LPs were available until well into the rock era. And in fact
> most people prefer mono Beatles and Stones LPs (of that era)
> sonically.
And in fact most of the Beatles and stones MONO releases were made on FOUR
track tape, just as many albums of the era were.
The Original Sgt Peppers mix was MONO, and master recordings made using TWO
by FOUR track tape machines synced together.
The mix down tape, and the original master tapes are not the same.
MrT.
Scott Dorsey
>In my opinion (and that of my colleague Greg Ogonowski, an aficionado of
>music from that era as well as an audio processing designer who is well
>respected in the industry) the majority of popular music LPs from the late
>'60s sound mediocre or worse.
Oh, absolutely. BUT, it was typical of the times. In the case of classical
music, in which there was a reference to go by, it's clear that you can make
sonic changes to the originals.
But in the case of pop and rock music in which the reference was only in
the head of the producer, I am really reluctant to see sonic changes,
because they affect the music. Whether those changes are adverse or not
is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but I think the first rule is
to do no harm.
A couple examples: first, the Leon Russell live album. It has _no_ low
end. Someone just ran it through a sharp high-pass in the cutting room,
maybe to get rid of some low end problems in the live tapes. The CD
issue has the low end restored, more or less to what we would consider
concert level today... and it totally changes the impact of the music.
I think it does so in a bad way. You could argue it does so in a good
way, but either way it changes it.
Itchykoo Park used to be famous for the really, really deep kick drum,
which sounded like cardboard on small speakers. It was the lowest I
had ever seen anyone cut on a 45, and there was no way that record could
be played on a typical record player of the sixties. The CD reissue
turns it into a modern-style kick drum. It's a totally different song
when you do this.
Because of a lack of standardized control room
>monitoring and haphazard acoustic treatment, tonal balances from one LP to
>the next were *grossly* (and unmusically) inconsistent. Many records had
>sibilance distortion cut into them (I base this statement on the fact that I
>have heard sibilance breakup during the first play of a surprising number of
>virgin, factory-sealed LPs with a well set up Shure V15VXMR).
Absolutely.
>Sibilance distortion could be cut into the vinyl for several reasons.
>"Acceleration limiters" of the era (like the Fairchild Conax) were crude at
>best and not always used as required, and channel-strip de-essers were almost
>unknown outside of cinema re-recording stages. So vocals in LPs of the era
>tended to be boxy-sounding (although with natural sibilance balances) or to
>be equalized to have more presence. The latter technique allowed sibilance to
>sound clean on 15 ips and 30 ips master tapes (which have plenty of high
>frequency headroom) but could cause major problems in cutting because the HF
>headroom characteristic of vinyl (expressed in terms of cutting stylus
>velocity) basically follows a 75 microsecond de-emphasis curve (i.e. -3 dB at
>2122 Hz with a 6 dB/octave rolloff above that frequency), which is the high
>frequency pole of RIAA playback EQ. I created the first Orban/Parasound de-
>esser after watching mixers wrestle with the "vocal presence vs. sibilance"
>problem. Admittedly, some engineers of the era coped reasonably well with the
>presence/sibilance tradeoff, mostly by choice and placement of microphones,
>but a surprising number did not. (My hat is off to Chuck Britz, who recorded
>the Beach Boys at Capitol during this era.)
This is where microscopic examination comes into play because it allows you
to see if the sibilance is due to groove geometry or due to something wrong
in the mixing room. If it's due to groove geometry, there is often something
that you can do about it in playback (sometimes involving major changes to
the cartridge alignment to compensate for misaligned cutting heads).
>In 2007, people expect better sound than most pop music studios were able to
>produce in the mid to late '60s. That is why my philosophy in transferring
>LPs is to also remaster them to take advantage of signal processing tools
>that engineers in the late '60s didn't have available. I know that some
>people have a fetish for maintaining the original sound as much as possible,
>but most folks who were actually studio engineers at the time have no
>nostalgia for the technical limitations of the studios back in the day.
I understand the technical limitations of the day, but I think those technical
limitations affect the music stylistically and they need to be retained. I
also think Bach should be played on original instruments for the same time.
>If I have done my job well, the music should appear to have snapped into
>focus, no matter how murky or badly equalized the original LP sounded.
>Percussion should sound punchy. Vocals should sound present but not sibilant.
>The technical quality of the recording should never get in the way of the
>music.
I'd agree with this in the case of classical music, but with some rock, the
recording does get in the way of the music and that's what makes the music
what it is.
Robert Orban
>
>But in the case of pop and rock music in which the reference was only in
>the head of the producer, I am really reluctant to see sonic changes,
>because they affect the music. Whether those changes are adverse or not
>is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but I think the first rule is
>to do no harm.
>
>A couple examples: first, the Leon Russell live album. It has _no_ low
>end. Someone just ran it through a sharp high-pass in the cutting room,
>maybe to get rid of some low end problems in the live tapes. The CD
>issue has the low end restored, more or less to what we would consider
>concert level today... and it totally changes the impact of the music.
>I think it does so in a bad way. You could argue it does so in a good
>way, but either way it changes it.
>
>Itchykoo Park used to be famous for the really, really deep kick drum,
>which sounded like cardboard on small speakers. It was the lowest I
>had ever seen anyone cut on a 45, and there was no way that record could
>be played on a typical record player of the sixties. The CD reissue
>turns it into a modern-style kick drum. It's a totally different song
>when you do this.
I understand your point, but I would ask you this -- *what* sound was in the
head of the producer? Was it as heard on Altec A7's? UREI's? JBL's? All of
those speakers were significantly colored and all sounded different from each
other, so the sound "in the producer's head" might be quite different than the
sound we hear on modern, well-engineered loudspeakers and might have been
different if the producer had mixed in a different control room with different
acoustics and/or a different model of loudspeaker.
As I stated in my post, I prefer to try to "correct" spectral balances that I
believe were probably caused by colored loudspeakers in the original mixdown
room or in the mastering room. I can only justify this by (1) my personal
preference (I'm not getting paid for my restoration work :-) and (2)
experiments done by Sean Olive and Floyd Toole on consumer loudspeaker
preference. With reference to the "remastering" controversy, what I take away
from Olive and Toole's work is that people seem to have a pretty well-defined
model in their brains of what a natural spectral balance should sound like and
they consistently prefer loudspeakers that supply this to them. Thanks largely
to O&T's work, today's popular loudspeakers are not only less colored than any
time in the past but also sound closer to each other regarding spectral
balance. It's amazing what you can get in a $250 loudspeaker today (from
companies like PSB, Mirage, Energy, etc., not to mention the speaker
manufacturers under the Harman banner) compared to what you could get even 10
years ago.
Bob Orban
hank alrich
Assuming they could even be found.
--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam
hank alrich
> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1188418133.5...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
> > And in fact most people prefer mono Beatles and
> > Stones LPs (of that era) sonically.
>
> OK, so their engineers didn't always know how to mix properly.
Right, Geoff Emerick didn't know how to mix. You're too much, dude. You
go show Geoff how it should've been done. He'll be all ears.
Arny Krueger
news:1i3nv7j.1wiqza2hpnefdN%walk...@nv.net
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1188418133.5...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
>
>>> And in fact most people prefer mono Beatles and
>>> Stones LPs (of that era) sonically.
>>
>> OK, so their engineers didn't always know how to mix
>> properly.
>
> Right, Geoff Emerick didn't know how to mix.
So Hank, you think that those Beatles albums with about half the sources
slammed hard right, and the other half slammed hard left are good examples
of quality mixing?
Hank, I'm beginning to think that you aren't as familiar with the early
Beatles/Stones diskography as you should be to make comments like this.
hank alrich
> "hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
> news:1i3nv7j.1wiqza2hpnefdN%walk...@nv.net
> > Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1188418133.5...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
> >
> >>> And in fact most people prefer mono Beatles and
> >>> Stones LPs (of that era) sonically.
> >>
> >> OK, so their engineers didn't always know how to mix
> >> properly.
> >
> > Right, Geoff Emerick didn't know how to mix.
>
> So Hank, you think that those Beatles albums with about half the sources
> slammed hard right, and the other half slammed hard left are good examples
> of quality mixing?
Yes, if you know spit from Shinola about what was at hand in the way of
gear.
> Hank, I'm beginning to think that you aren't as familiar with the early
> Beatles/Stones diskography as you should be to make comments like this.
Happy to have you think whatever the fuck you want. You're on the top of
the crap heap when the tech shit stops and the music starts.
Scott Dorsey
>Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> > Stones LPs (of that era) sonically.
>>
>> OK, so their engineers didn't always know how to mix properly.
>
>Right, Geoff Emerick didn't know how to mix. You're too much, dude. You
>go show Geoff how it should've been done. He'll be all ears.
As I recall, Geoff was not at _all_ happy about the stereo versions.