On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:46:26 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...


I sometimes play my ipod through my stereo...sounds just a hair below a
well-done CD. Nothing beats an ipod for portable entertainment.

I agree with the guy that wrote the article. Most sound like they were
recorded in a coffee can.
I occasionally use a mp3 for various purposes including burning cds or
downloading to Mrs.E's iPod.
But before I do, I use a program called "Audacity" to modify and enhance the
file to get rid of that coffee can sound.

I just cannot handle that overly compressed, airy and tinny sound.
Different strokes.

Eisboch


Mostly fixed with phase correction.

.... and making your MP3's with a much higher sample rate than the
default. try 192k

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:46:26 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...


I sometimes play my ipod through my stereo...sounds just a hair below a
well-done CD. Nothing beats an ipod for portable entertainment.

I agree with the guy that wrote the article. Most sound like they were
recorded in a coffee can.
I occasionally use a mp3 for various purposes including burning cds or
downloading to Mrs.E's iPod.
But before I do, I use a program called "Audacity" to modify and enhance
the
file to get rid of that coffee can sound.

I just cannot handle that overly compressed, airy and tinny sound.
Different strokes.

Eisboch


Mostly fixed with phase correction.

... and making your MP3's with a much higher sample rate than the
default. try 192k


High sample rates (320kbps) certainly makes them better but the files get
bigger. Wav files sound best because there's no compression, but the files
are huge. People aren't into quality, they are into quantity, so they pack
their iPods and mp3 players with low quality, low sample rate files. I just
can't get into that. Despite what some claim, I can (and so can my wife)
distinguish the difference of a high quality CD PCM track and a high sample
rate conversion of it to mp3.

You can't replace what isn't there. But, with Audacity you can add some
depth to get rid of the coffee can sound.
As discussed many times before, it all depends on what you are listening to
them on. An iPod plugged into a docking station or a non-revealing audio
system sounds ok for background music.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:46:26 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...


I sometimes play my ipod through my stereo...sounds just a hair below a
well-done CD. Nothing beats an ipod for portable entertainment.

I agree with the guy that wrote the article. Most sound like they were
recorded in a coffee can.
I occasionally use a mp3 for various purposes including burning cds or
downloading to Mrs.E's iPod.
But before I do, I use a program called "Audacity" to modify and
enhance the
file to get rid of that coffee can sound.

I just cannot handle that overly compressed, airy and tinny sound.
Different strokes.

Eisboch


Mostly fixed with phase correction.

... and making your MP3's with a much higher sample rate than the
default. try 192k


High sample rates (320kbps) certainly makes them better but the files
get bigger. Wav files sound best because there's no compression, but
the files are huge. People aren't into quality, they are into quantity,
so they pack their iPods and mp3 players with low quality, low sample
rate files. I just can't get into that. Despite what some claim, I can
(and so can my wife) distinguish the difference of a high quality CD PCM
track and a high sample rate conversion of it to mp3.

You can't replace what isn't there. But, with Audacity you can add some
depth to get rid of the coffee can sound.
As discussed many times before, it all depends on what you are listening
to them on. An iPod plugged into a docking station or a non-revealing
audio system sounds ok for background music.

Eisboch




It sorta depends on *what* you are listening to, too.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:02:23 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:46:26 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...


I sometimes play my ipod through my stereo...sounds just a hair below a
well-done CD. Nothing beats an ipod for portable entertainment.

I agree with the guy that wrote the article. Most sound like they were
recorded in a coffee can.
I occasionally use a mp3 for various purposes including burning cds or
downloading to Mrs.E's iPod.
But before I do, I use a program called "Audacity" to modify and enhance
the
file to get rid of that coffee can sound.

I just cannot handle that overly compressed, airy and tinny sound.
Different strokes.

Eisboch


Mostly fixed with phase correction.

... and making your MP3's with a much higher sample rate than the
default. try 192k


High sample rates (320kbps) certainly makes them better but the files get
bigger. Wav files sound best because there's no compression, but the files
are huge. People aren't into quality, they are into quantity, so they pack
their iPods and mp3 players with low quality, low sample rate files. I just
can't get into that. Despite what some claim, I can (and so can my wife)
distinguish the difference of a high quality CD PCM track and a high sample
rate conversion of it to mp3.

You can't replace what isn't there. But, with Audacity you can add some
depth to get rid of the coffee can sound.
As discussed many times before, it all depends on what you are listening to
them on. An iPod plugged into a docking station or a non-revealing audio
system sounds ok for background music.

Eisboch


I think we mostly agree on this. I was just pointing out that not all
MP3's are created equal. I don't know how much time you like to spend
on your music hobby, but you sound like someone who could probably
enjoy Adobe Audition 3. It's about $350, and worth every penny. I
prefer it greatly to Pro-Tools, and it's much cheaper to buy.

When the heads on my 8 track Tascam wore out, I saw the handwriting on
the wal. Replacing the heads was going to be VERY expensive, and the
last few years have seen 1/2 inch tape go in and out of production. l
took the plunge and went 100% digital. It's a whole new world, and
I'm loving it. I'm even enjoying re-learning recording, which has some
differences from tape. First rule: Saturation BAD with digital
recording. With tape, it could be used to advantage. No more. Minus
12db is your friend!

BTW - there's a guy making really good U-47 microphone replicas for
about 2k. I mean REALLY good. Once you get seriously into recording,
microphone collecting becomes a companion addiction...

wrote in message
news

When the heads on my 8 track Tascam wore out, I saw the handwriting on
the wal. Replacing the heads was going to be VERY expensive, and the
last few years have seen 1/2 inch tape go in and out of production. l
took the plunge and went 100% digital. It's a whole new world, and
I'm loving it. I'm even enjoying re-learning recording, which has some
differences from tape. First rule: Saturation BAD with digital
recording. With tape, it could be used to advantage. No more. Minus
12db is your friend!

BTW - there's a guy making really good U-47 microphone replicas for
about 2k. I mean REALLY good. Once you get seriously into recording,
microphone collecting becomes a companion addiction...


I'd love to get my hands on an old, working reel to reel tape deck with
sound on sound and sound with sound. I used to have a Teac deck that was
fantastic, but it's long gone.

I bought a Boss 900CD last year with intentions of learning about digital
recording.
It's still around here somewhere but the learning curve is extensive. I
thought it was because I was just plain stupid, but apparently other users
of it have had the same experience.

http://www.bossus.com/gear/productde...?ProductId=718

The "easy to use" claim was written with a bit of poetic license.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
news

When the heads on my 8 track Tascam wore out, I saw the handwriting on
the wal. Replacing the heads was going to be VERY expensive, and the
last few years have seen 1/2 inch tape go in and out of production. l
took the plunge and went 100% digital. It's a whole new world, and
I'm loving it. I'm even enjoying re-learning recording, which has some
differences from tape. First rule: Saturation BAD with digital
recording. With tape, it could be used to advantage. No more. Minus
12db is your friend!

BTW - there's a guy making really good U-47 microphone replicas for
about 2k. I mean REALLY good. Once you get seriously into recording,
microphone collecting becomes a companion addiction...


I'd love to get my hands on an old, working reel to reel tape deck with
sound on sound and sound with sound.

Pawn shops.

"hk" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
news

When the heads on my 8 track Tascam wore out, I saw the handwriting on
the wal. Replacing the heads was going to be VERY expensive, and the
last few years have seen 1/2 inch tape go in and out of production. l
took the plunge and went 100% digital. It's a whole new world, and
I'm loving it. I'm even enjoying re-learning recording, which has some
differences from tape. First rule: Saturation BAD with digital
recording. With tape, it could be used to advantage. No more. Minus
12db is your friend!

BTW - there's a guy making really good U-47 microphone replicas for
about 2k. I mean REALLY good. Once you get seriously into recording,
microphone collecting becomes a companion addiction...


I'd love to get my hands on an old, working reel to reel tape deck with
sound on sound and sound with sound.

Pawn shops.


You know what? I don't know of a Pawn shop within a 30 mile radius of
here. I am sure they exist, but I sure don't know of any.

I've had good luck posting a "Wanted" listing in Craigslist. It's how I
got one of the Hammond B3s and Leslie, and at a good price. As salty
pointed out though, good quality tape is getting hard to find as well
although I am sure it exists.

Eisboch

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 09:18:43 -0500, "Eisboch"


I have a 720 Roberts you can have for the shipping but it might not be
good enough for what you want.

I really appreciate that but I'd hate to put you through the trouble. I
think if I want to stay current I should take the time and learn how to use
the new digital recorders like the 900CD. The problem with the old stuff is
if I get hooked and then it breaks, I need parts, etc. I am back to square
one.

Again though, thanks for the offer. mmmptttttfffff...... (maybe I should
..... naw, forget it.)

Eisboch

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:58:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 09:18:43 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
news:Ormdnc5jIfIIeOzUnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@earthlink. com...
Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
news

When the heads on my 8 track Tascam wore out, I saw the handwriting on
the wal. Replacing the heads was going to be VERY expensive, and the
last few years have seen 1/2 inch tape go in and out of production. l
took the plunge and went 100% digital. It's a whole new world, and
I'm loving it. I'm even enjoying re-learning recording, which has some
differences from tape. First rule: Saturation BAD with digital
recording. With tape, it could be used to advantage. No more. Minus
12db is your friend!

BTW - there's a guy making really good U-47 microphone replicas for
about 2k. I mean REALLY good. Once you get seriously into recording,
microphone collecting becomes a companion addiction...


I'd love to get my hands on an old, working reel to reel tape deck with
sound on sound and sound with sound.

Pawn shops.


You know what? I don't know of a Pawn shop within a 30 mile radius of
here. I am sure they exist, but I sure don't know of any.

I've had good luck posting a "Wanted" listing in Craigslist. It's how I
got one of the Hammond B3s and Leslie, and at a good price. As salty
pointed out though, good quality tape is getting hard to find as well
although I am sure it exists.

Eisboch

I have a 720 Roberts you can have for the shipping but it might not be
good enough for what you want.

I had one of those! Had little metal flaps over the built in 3 inch
speakers on the sides. It also had the X-Field head setup designed and
produced by AKAI. A pretty good portable machine. Only two tracks and
1/4 inch tape, but you could ping-pong more tracks as long as you
didn't mind the resulting loss of sound quality. Worked okay for
composing and making very rough demos.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:56:23 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
news

When the heads on my 8 track Tascam wore out, I saw the handwriting on
the wal. Replacing the heads was going to be VERY expensive, and the
last few years have seen 1/2 inch tape go in and out of production. l
took the plunge and went 100% digital. It's a whole new world, and
I'm loving it. I'm even enjoying re-learning recording, which has some
differences from tape. First rule: Saturation BAD with digital
recording. With tape, it could be used to advantage. No more. Minus
12db is your friend!

BTW - there's a guy making really good U-47 microphone replicas for
about 2k. I mean REALLY good. Once you get seriously into recording,
microphone collecting becomes a companion addiction...


I'd love to get my hands on an old, working reel to reel tape deck with
sound on sound and sound with sound. I used to have a Teac deck that was
fantastic, but it's long gone.

I bought a Boss 900CD last year with intentions of learning about digital
recording.
It's still around here somewhere but the learning curve is extensive. I
thought it was because I was just plain stupid, but apparently other users
of it have had the same experience.

http://www.bossus.com/gear/productde...?ProductId=718

The "easy to use" claim was written with a bit of poetic license.

Eisboch

Yeah, before the 8 track Tascam, I had the 4 track for many years. I
wore that out, too. The 4 track also had a few weaknesses that needed
repair periodically. The reel tables, especially were noted for not
holding up under heavy use.

With availability of 1/2 inch tape becoming an issue, I decided it was
time to make the change. I had already seen what digital could do in
the hands of others, and I finally succumbed. I don't regret it. It
sure was an adjustment, though. A lot of previously good habits and
techniques are now bad habits and techniques.

Adobe Audition 3 certainly has a steep learning curve. It's too much
fun, though, to let that stop me. I'm enjoying having something new to
learn.

The change over really re-invigorated my interest in composing,
playing and recording music, which had atrophied the past few years.
Buying new stuff is always fun, too. I'm currently looking for a drop
dead deal on this:

http://www.roland.com/products/en/TD-9KX/index.html

check out the demo video!