Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    I've not had much trouble with my K960 Yamaha deck - but I use Maxell
    tape and dbx if I'm really particular.  Maxell seems to saturate better
    than TDK (which is also good tape).  I'd take dbx over dolby any day of
    the week. 

    A friend of mine has a top-o-the-line Nak ... his dolby'd tapes sound
    lousy compared to the dbx'd ones I get off the K960.  My 2�. 

-b

    I don't understand all this slagging off Dolby -- it's so widely
    used in pro duping, it can't be THAT bad!
    
    Richard.

    	
    	You have 8 tracks.... and your problem comes when you mix the
    8 to your final demo?  Or when you mix tracks as in 1 and 2 into
    3?  I found decent results equalizing tracks 1 and 2 before mixing
    to track 4.  I have the same problem with my 4 track recording 
    process, but thats my quick fix.  
    I use 2 reverbs.. 1 for my drums, and 1 for the keys.  When I do
    my final remix, I EQ. and the pass it thru a final reverb to tighten
    the sound.
    
    ed

Re: .0


Ross,

You might want to look into an aural exciter.  I have a similar problem with 
my system.  I need to generate alot of cassette copies from my 16-track and by 
the time I have duplicates, they're second generation tapes (grandsons of the 
master reel).

So I purchased an aural exciter (Aphex and BBS make them) because it would 
essentially take away the generations between the reel, the master cassette,
and duplicate cassettes.  I use mine (Aphex; list $300) during mixdown to my 
master cassette and then I use it in between my master cassette deck and the 
slave decks to again enhance the sound.  The Aphex is tunable for flexibility.

These are 2-channel devices so it's very handy for stereo applications.  I 
believe that they are similar to EQ's but don't add any hiss to your recording.
They tend to bring out the highs nicely and help give stereo separation of 
your sound (i.e., gets rid of the muddy stuff).


Hope this helps....

Jeff (who's learning this stuff the hard, but fulfilling way!)

In the Alesis micro series is the micro enhancer.  A micro version of
-.1s stuff.  Probably not as versatile but lists for $125.

FWIW

Chad

    We all in the same boat.. eventually our high-tech mix has to arrive
    on a cassette.
    
    Aural Exciters actually generate NEW high frequency overtones from
    the basic mix, and when used in moderation can compensate for the
    'dulling' effect when mixing/dubbing to cassettes.
    
    But WHY are these cassette dubs dull ?  As the tape speed is so low,
    1 7/8ips, all kinds of problems can occur.  First, cassette recorders
    are far more sensitive to tape bias frequencies than open-reel
    recorders, yet how many of us just buy whatever 'hi-bias' tape is
    on sale this week ?  I have my Nak 1000 and 600 dex carefully biased
    to TDK SAxx tape, and have very little problem, nearly hissfree
    recording using the builtin Dolby 'B' processor.  Standardize on
    a tape and get your deck biassed to use this tape.
    
    However, sometimes I'll play a cassette recorded on the Nak 1000
    on a friend's system and it'll sound terribly dull.  So secondly,
    Dolby is EXTREMELY sensitive to azimuth/head alignment.  But since
    even a tape produced on a deck with poorly aligned heads will sound
    fine on that deck only, that of course doesn't explain why you have 
    poor response on the deck you recorded with... I'd lean in your
    case to reason #1 above.. the deck isn't biassed to the tape you use.

    karl

    --and commercially produced cassettes can sound great (by no means
    hi-fi, but nevertheless great). 
    
    Speaking for myself, I often expect the final mix from master to
    cassette to somehow magically clean up a tape that sounded a bit
    duff anyway. And the inbuilt compression of the cassette medium can be to
    your advantage.  
    
    But generaly speaking, though it's handy to blame the cassette, it's maybe
    a little late at that stage.  
    
    Richard.

    Boy, I'm glad I'm not the only one with this hangup.  The solution
    for me is going to be to eventually go to a THOR-type system for
    masters.  Either that or come across a half-track (ha!).  Another
    solution for me might be to go to a VHS or Beta deck for masters.
    But, for now it's Dolbe B and metal tape.  By the way, I'm discovering
    that my tape deck records okay with dolby and plays back fine. 
    But, when you copy tapes (it's a dual deck) the dolby goes out to
    lunch.  Hence, you're going to hear lots of hiss on my latest Commusic
    submissions.  I think the problem is that dolby is only on one of
    the decks and it is set up to either add it or remove it (sigh).
    
    Steve

    I can't afford noise reduction (lots of other stuff I still want),
    but find that if I over-compensate the high-end while recording
    on my Tascam 38, and roll-off the highs during mix-down to my model
    32... this acts much the same as if I had noise reduction.
    
    I too suffer from the eventual copy-to-cassette-blues, and have
    given up dolby as it always sounds like I've got cotton in my ears.
    Lets face it... you do your best with "semi-pro" equipment.  It
    isn't as if I've got a $100,000.00 studio in my bedroom.  I'd rather
    hear a minimal amount of hsssssssss.... rather than listen to a
    product that has no excitement.
    
    It also helps to edit leader tape on your master 1/2 track (if you
    have one) so that the music starts (and ends) at the point of edit.
    This alleviates any signal processing noise prior and following
    the actual composition.  Obviously, the 'type' of music you record
    will effect the apparent quality of the recording (ex:  Rock at
    warp 10 .vs. Brahm's lullaby).
    
    Good subject matter!
    dc

    < Note 1771.8 by 57076::SHERMAN "Love is a decision ..." >
>    Boy, I'm glad I'm not the only one with this hangup.  The solution
>    for me is going to be to eventually go to a THOR-type system for
>    masters.  Either that or come across a half-track (ha!).  Another
>    solution for me might be to go to a VHS or Beta deck for masters.

    wellll...  no matter what ya do regarding the original stereo mix,
    it still lands on cassette sooner or later.  I've moved to a VCR
    deck with 14-bit PCM.. stunning.. but I have a cassette deck in
    the car..  so as long as cassettes are a mystery then the dubs made
    to cassette will be muddy.
    
    karl
    

    re many previous replies - Karl's hit it right on the head; mixing
    down from a medium with 95 db of signal to noise ratio and flat response
    from 20 Hz to 18 KHz (8 track 1/2" tape at 15 ips with dbx NR) to
    a medium with maybe 55 db of S/N and "flat" response from 50Hz to
    12 KHz (4 track 1/8" tape at 1 7/8 ips with Dolby NR) is going
    to be a losing proposition, especially if you have a very high dynamic
    range source (e.g., uncompressed synths).  It goes with the turf.
    
    And after you copy the cassette, forget it.
             
    len.
    

    Wow! 11 responses in one day! I'm still pretty new to the notes
    file and am quickly becoming a fan. You guys have given me some
    great ideas to experiment with.
    
    First of all, I own a Rocktron 8 channel noise reduction unit
    which is collecting an impressive layer of dust. I really don't
    like how it affects the brilliance of the sound so I have put it
    to rest. The main reason I got it at the time was because I 
    wanted my tapes to start right out of a dead silence. At the time
    I was not familiar with the function of a noise gate, I now own
    two dbx units and have acheived that goal...probabley the best 
    investment I ever made. I could care less about the hiss that is
    present while the song is playing because it is not audible above
    the music. The only time I have a problem is when the song has a
    very quiet passage with perhaps only a piano or an acoustic 
    guitar, then the hiss is audible but usually not too offensive.
    I'd still rather have a bit of hiss than sacrifice some of the
    tonality of the instrument.
    
    Anyway, back to the Rocktron. I think I will try running the music
    throught it, encoding and decoding in the process, when I do the
    mix onto cassette. Will this work??? I also own an Aphex Aural 
    Exciter, I could try using it to replace the brilliance that the
    noise reduction unit may be taking away. I hadn't even thought of
    using it for that purpose.
    
    I will also try bias adjustments on my cassette deck. I have been
    mixing onto Nakamichi metal cassettes and am not really sure if
    metal tape is best for this purpose. I just walked into Tweeter
    and said "gimme the best cassette tape you got", hoping that this
    would give me the best quality. Smart thinkin' for a Polish guy,
    uh?!

    As someone put it to me once, "when you buy a $300 cassette deck,
    how much of that do you think was invested into the dolby unit."
    Needless to say, he had a good point and I have little faith in
    the cassette deck's dolby system.
    
    Thanks for your help,
    Ross

 >   As someone put it to me once, "when you buy a $300 cassette deck,
 >   how much of that do you think was invested into the dolby unit."
 
My guess would be probably about as much as when you buy a $67,000
MagneMondo Z1000-X.

Dolby is a licensed process. I suspect there's not a whole lot of
room for tweakings.

Didn't someone in this file once rag on Nak's for their ability to
make tapes that sound gorgeous when played back on a Nak, but not
on any other deck??? Does that still hold?

Edd

    < Note 1771.13 by WEFXEM::COTE "Sing with the clams, knave!" >
>Didn't someone in this file once rag on Nak's for their ability to
>make tapes that sound gorgeous when played back on a Nak, but not
>on any other deck??? Does that still hold?

    Well, Mr. Elephant Memory, it WAS me.  And no, it doesn't still
    hold.. the cassette in my DECwreck ('87 Ford Taurus) sounds GREAT
    playing tapes made on the Nakamichi 1000.  And other, well-set up
    and CLEAN (remember to clean your cassette heads, kids!) stereo
    systems sound fine playing my tapes.
    
    It's systems with crud-encrusted playback heads and speakers sitting
    on the carpet that will turn your crystal-clear music into mud.
    Speakers sitting on the floor do two things.. the bass speaker
    'couples' with the floor (not like you're thinking, Edd!) and generates
    much more energy than if off the floor.  Secondly, high frequencies
    are highly directional.. if your speakers are on the floor the only
    way music will sound crisp is if you're on the floor yourself OR
    have eardrums in your knees.
    
    karl

    > Well, Mr. Elephant Memory, it WAS me.
    
    Y' know, I think it was Mr. Brad "Here I am, There I go, I'm back,
    now I'm gone again" Schaeffer, during the compilation of Commusic
    I.
    
    Uncle Brad! You out there??? Defend thyself!!
    
    Edd

    
    re: .-1
    
    Thank you Karl, I was wondering when someone was going to pipe up
    and ask "are your heads clean and demagnetized?"... Every eight
    hours.
    
    Working in a studio does tend to make one religious about it,
    ESPECIALLY on the most pitiful medium (not counting LPs but I don't
    record onto those). If you don't clean your deck, your tapes will
    sound, well, dull.
    
    Btw, speaking of hiss, just to set the record straight, back a few,
    Steve Sherman was apologizing in advance for the hiss on his latest
    submissions. I'll stick up for him and all the rest of the current
    set of submittors; there is less hiss on these tapes than I've heard
    (granted, I'm listening to one generation less too)... but it's
    still much higher quality than previous tapes I have heard.
    
    /pjh

    re: .16
    
    > Granted I'm listening to one generation less...
    
    Bingo!!!
    
    My masters sound noticeably better than the copies, but that's life.
    
    If you have a method of doing a cassette-to-cassette copies without
    degradation you'll be elected Commusic's first god.  ;-)
    
    Note that everyone's opinion was the Commusic III sounded the best.
    That's definitely because it was mastered on a Beta HIFI.
    
    Which brings us back to the original question.
    
    You should consider getting a HIFI VCR.  It's very attractive in that
    not only does it make excellent audio reproduction, heck, it also
    let's you record the Celtics games, watch rented movies, etc.  This
    also means that it's cost is a little easier to justify ("Honey, I'm
    not getting it for the studio, it's for the family!!!").
    
    Two things about HIFI VCRs.  Most have "Automatic Gain Control" (AGC)
    builtin to it.  This is sorta like compression/limiting.  If you 
    wanna use it for mastering you need to get a deck that allows you
    to turn-off the AGC.  Many decks have this feature.
    
    Many VHS HIFI decks are extremely noisey.  My experience is that the
    audio quality is either very good or very bad for VHS HIFI.
    
    I've never heard a Beta HIFI that was anything less the super.  But,
    of course, Beta is all but dead.  You can still get blank tapes
    easily enough, but it's hard to find rental stores that carry Beta.
    Bottom line is get Beta only if your primary use of the thing is
    as a mastering deck, or if you don't plan to buy/sell/trade
    pre-recorded tapes.
    
    The good news about Beta is that you can get them pretty cheaply
    these days - probably starting around $350 for a NEW hifi deck.
    There's also lots of used Beta HIFI for sale (but not mine, no sir)
    by people who are converting to VHS.
    
    	db

    PCM encoded mixing to beta video tape definitely produces extremely
    high-quality masters - I'm currently using this with my 16-track
    system. An added advantage is that should you wish to commit your
    mega-work to vinyl, many pressing plants can read this format.
    
    As far as cassettes are concerned, an alternative is obviously needed.
    I am planning to experiment with a system to encode a stereo audio
    signal into an ordinary household brick using some form of molecular
    resonance. If anyone has any experience of this . . . . .
    
    I think this could damage your kneedrums.

    Yeah I saw a play on TV called "Stone Tapes", where the walls of
    a room contained recorded fragments of emotionally charged happenings.
    
    Damn good, eh?
    
    Richard.

    
    RE .19  Richard,
    
    I read something about this type of thing somewhere. Apparently
    the stone walls of some medieval inn/pub (12th century?) contained
    some amount of iron oxides. Two scientists were trying to "play back" 
    some of the happenings by running very high voltage through the
    walls, or something like that. The article said that probably only
    very loud conversations etc. would be retrievable. Very intriguing
    idea/concept if true. Unfortunately, I think it's pure fantasy to
    be able to achieve this. (It's probably not even a technologically
    valid premise (misguided physics?) to begin with, IMO).
    
    Mike D
    

    are these the same dweebs that tried to playback the audio
    "preserved" in paint on paintings, as it dryed?
    let's distribute commusic VII that way.  keep sending in 
    tapes for commusic vi or whatever it is.
    we'll use latex with iron filings to make sure.  Don't forget that
    the echo in a room never dies, it just goes below thermal 
    energy levels, I mean down to that level.  Maybe if you supercooled
    the room, you could hear old conversations.  Who needs it?  I can
    hear old conversations in the hallway next to my office as it is.
    Tom

    re: -.1
    
    Seems to me the scientists have three reasons for doing this kind
    of research:
    
    a) Nobody knows what they are doing, but they *are* 'scientists',
    they *are* playing around with high-tech terms like voltage and
    iron oxides (high-tech is very in nowadays), and the idea that we
    could hear the shouts during 12th-century bar room brawls might
    better help us to gain better understanding and appreciation of
    the sophistication and eloquence of the culture.  Thus, someone
    is bound to fund such a project.
    
    b) Somebody was willing to write about them.
    
    c) With high voltages around those iron oxides, they are likely
    to discover that the folks in the 12th century had a surprisingly
    advanced science, apparently lost to all mankind.  This will occur
    when the scientists will finally emerge and the only words from the
    past finally to speak from the brick will be, 'Let's try a little 
    higher voltage and see what it does ...'
    
    
    Steve

    Whatever the outcome, this has got to be the most appropriate
    discussion we could ever have under a 'Home Recording' topic.
    
    Richard.

    Did I really start all of this?

    AARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!
    
    WHO SAID THAT?
    
    Richard.

re: .24

Nope, you didn't start it, it was here all the time, you just pushed the button
that exposed it all :-)

    Someone ought to then check out some of the great opera houses,
    and create a tape of Superstars of the Past... say, aren't some
    of Beethoven's pianos still in existence ?  The strings ought to
    have retained the... never mind !

    Of course, ice preserves the sounds occuring as it solidified.
    This will be my big chance to hear what goes on in the freezer
    while I'm at work!  Also the source of my newest musical pieces!
    Tom

    To get back to the original topic (maybe heresey at this point?),
    don't forget that biasing a tape machine is not a one shot deal.
    The tape manufacturers are constantly revising and updating their
    formulas, often without notice.  That means that aside from batch
    to batch consistency variations, which are somewhat normal, there
    are formula changes that also affect performance that are not
    announced.  It makes the case for buying 3 head decks, if you can
    afford it.  Then you can check new batches of tapes quickly each
    time, before you use them.  Unfortunately, the more tracks you have,
    the more of a pain the recalibration is.  That's the curse of
    flexibility, I guess. ............................Jon................

    Jim Mastracco (a fellow grad student at RPI) did his PhD thesis on
    recording the sound of a great music hall.  Not the sound of a great
    performance in a great music hall, the sound of the hall itself,
    divorced from the performance.
    
    The result was a linear transformation that could take a free-space
    microphoning of an instrument and "place" that instrument into a
    number of great halls, including Beyreuth, the Troy Music Hall, as
    well as a number of bad halls, such as Lincoln Center, etc.
    
    He was working on the back-calculation of taking the transform of
    a hall and using it to manipulate the recording of a concert so
    as to remove the effects of the hall acoustics (yielding a synthetic
    free-space performance) and then placing that performance into a
    good hall.
    
    I think that he's going to defend his thesis sometime soon... should
    be interesting.  Ever wanted to hear what it would be like to have
    the Dead playing in your living room, with the acoustics of the
    Globe theatre?  :-)
    
    	-Bill

Y* has some HiFi audio device for which I saw a blurb about  at Tweeter, ah
I mean Cookin', at Pheasant Lane Mall in Nashua.  The DSP3000 or some such 
thing.  It looked (from description) like a glorified reverb box.  It lists 
different halls and stadiums as well as some generics i believe to apply to
your music on CD.  Was reviewed in a recent AUDIO or STEREO REVIEW magazine.

CHad

    Um - did someone call for me?

    How in the world do I give this topic a meaningful title?  Leave it the
    heck alone, that's how. 
    
-b

    Re:  Biasing cassette decks.
    
    I inherited an Aiwa cassette deck with a knob for adjusting the
    bias on the front panel, which has markings for several different
    kinds of tape.  The tape I always use, Maxell XL-IIS, isn't one
    of them, although the XL-I is.  Is there any way I can adjust the
    bias myself?
    
    Rodney M.

    
    Bias is adjusted by applying a test tone to the deck at a fixed level,
    then adjusting the bias until you get maximum sound output from the
    tape.  Increasing (or decreasing) the bias from that point will cause
    lower output; this is easy to adjust if the deck has three heads, as
    you can monitor the tape output while turning the adjustment knob. 
    
    For two head machines, you need to tweak the knob by some fixed
    amount, leave it there for a few seconds, move it a notch, etc.
    keeping track of what you did while recording the test tone.  On
    playback, you see which knob setting produced the highest output
    and readjust the knob to that setting.
    
    Bear in mind that most decks with bias trimming can only adjust
    within a small range.  If the tape you are trying to trim requires
    a greater adjustment, you need to have the internal bias adjustments
    made (by a serviceman unless you have the service manual and know
    what you are doing).
    
    So, you ask, what tone do I use?  Good question!!!  My H/K deck
    has onboard tone generators and uses 400 Hz and 10 KHz.  The idea
    is to balance the two tones to appear at the same level.  Having
    the 10KHz at greater output causes a "hot" (brighter) sound, while
    having the 400Hz greater causes a duller sound.  When I can't quite
    get it flat, I prefer it on the hot side (wouldn't you??).

    I think you probably want to try the tones at about -10 dB as some
    tapes can't actually take a 10KHz test tone at 0 dB (which is why
    most tape decks are spec'ed for frequency response at -10dB).  A
    good source of 400 Hz is an electronic tuner with an audio output
    (A=440 Hz, close enough).  For 10 KHz???  Who knows!!!  An oscillator,
    of course....borrow one from the lab   8^)  8^)  8^)
    
    Another neat trick is to use white noise generated by your synth
    rig(this has components of all frequencies).  Trim the bias for maximum
    output on the signal, while listening for "dullness" in the sound.
    Underbiasing will cause a brighter sound, but limits the maximum output
    level, which can cause Dolby tracking problems (ugh). 
    
    If you also have Dolby trimmers (sometimes on the back panel of
    the deck), record a 400 Hz tone at 0 dB with the Dolby OFF.  Play
    back the tape and adjust the trimmers so that the tape playback
    reads 0 dB.  This will cal the Dolby for *that* tape.  Be forewarned,
    I have found that even within a single batch of tapes, biasing and
    Dolby level tweaks on a *per tape* basis are quite common.  Which
    is why having three heads and built-in oscillators so you can tweak
    prior to recording is a god-send.  
    
    There are some machines which automatically adjust themselves by
    recording test tones on the tape under microprocessor control (I
    have seen such from Aiwa, Denon and Sony).  These do all the dirty
    work for you!!!  

    Most tuners may be a square wave, so it may be inadvisable to use
    such a wide-bandwidth source (into the megahertz perhaps) on
    a tape deck to calibrate; I think you need a sine tone.  the old
    PAiA oscillator is probably good.  I also built a steady sine source
    from an 8038 and the circuit diagram in the radio shack book, or
    in the package.  Of course, you have to have a way to know what
    note it's on.
    
    I think that I once tried to adjust bias on an open reel deck.
    I can't remember what happened, but the deck was very distorted
    recording one of my recitals, so I got the effect I wanted...
    ;-)
    Tom

    Just FYI, I found out that it can now cost *less* to make a digital
    master than to make a �'' analog master in the studio.  That, plus
    the fact that studio time nowadays is pretty cheap ... The studio
    I'm working with is going to charge me $20/hour and it looks like
    we'll be able to do it all in about 2 hours.  Even though my master 
    is a metal tape cassette with Dolby B recorded on my Radio Trash
    deck, it looks like for not too much cash I'll be able to generate a 
    pretty decent digital master for the album!  In addition, in the
    studio we'll be able to dink around with my cassette master (like 
    probably do some noise gating and such), so there is a very good 
    chance that the digital master will sound better than my cassette 
    master!  :-) :-)  Looks like the album will be about 27 minutes (okay, 
    so it's short) with a total of 7 tunes (all but one have been or will 
    be on Commusic tapes, but the ones you've heard before have been redone).
    
    Steve

    How to get a sine wave (pick any one):
    
    	i) Punch up "SINE" on your ESQ or SQ-80
    
    	ii) Turn off all but one carrier and all of the modulators on
    	    a Y-word FM machine.
    
    	iii) Turn off the oscillators and set the filter to resonance
    	    on an Oberheim, Roland, or Juno subtractive machine. 
                                    
    		-Bill

    Yesterday, I got to go to the studio to create a half-track master
    for my album from my cassette master.  It went very well and very
    smoothly.  The master generated sounds very clean and clear.
    Several things contributed to a good session:
    
    	o I used metal tape and Dolby B for my cassette master
	o Recording was done straight from the synths to the cassette
    	  master.
    	o I cleaned and demagnetized my heads periodically.
    	o I carefully used a compressor/limiter so that we didn't
    	  have to worry about levels in the studio.
    	o I had several copies of the master with me (with and without
    	  Dolby) just in case one master was bad (turned out the one master
    	  with Dolby was enough).
    	o I did not record over anything.  Everything was to blank tape.
    	  When I had to redo a track it was on the next space on the
          tape.
	o I always listened to my stuff over two types of headphones, the 
    	  home stereo, and in the car to check the sound.  It was final
          only after it sounded good on all four.  I think this was a good way
    	  to check for pretty good bandwidth flatness.
    	o I ran my blank cassettes through the demagnetizer before using
    	  them (you can hear the difference when you play the blank
    	  tape before and after demagnetizing).
    	o We recorded on 15 ips analog with no noise reduction.  This
    	  is more expensive than digital, but allows you to very accurately
    	  cut and paste the songs and to add leader inbetween songs
	  (no need for a noise gate between songs).
    
    I was delighted to find out that my Radio Shack deck at home records
    a lot better than it plays back or duplicates.  When we played the
    cassette master on their nice expensive Teac deck we couldn't hear
    any discernable noise until we cranked it up really high inbetween
    songs.  But, my Radio Shack deck is absolutely lousy when it comes
    to making duplicates and seems to have more noise during playback.
    Anyway, the 15 ips master sounded great, especially on their good,
    flat-response speakers.
    
    I did the work at the Tape Complex (617-437-9449, 4 Haviland, Boston, 
    ask for Jay to make an appointment).  The folks in Acton Music 
    recommended them.  I am having the tape covers done at Typotech 
    (617-492-6300, 1120 Massachusetts Av, Boston) which is just up the 
    street from Tape Complex.  It's costing me about $50 for 100 cassette 
    covers (more than I expected).  It cost me about $230 total for the studio
    session at Tape Complex and 75 cassettes.  All this stuff will be
    shipped to me by the end of the week (no more trips to Boston to
    pick stuff up).  That probably added $20 to my total costs.
    
    Tape Complex will be shipping me the 15 ips master as well as the
    75 cassettes.  They offered to keep my master on file, but I decided
    not to.  If I hadn't ordered the tapes from them, I think the session
    alone would have cost about $50 to $75.  I got the impression that a lot
    of folks drop off cassette masters to them with instructions on
    how to generate the master.  They seemed to appreciate my willingness
    to be there to monitor the creation of the master.  They were very
    friendly and we had fun doing it.  They don't do high-speed recording 
    but have banks of high-quality cassette machines they record to from 
    the reel to reel masters or whatever.  (They can handle just about any 
    format such as DAT, PCM, VHS hi-fi, cassette and so forth.)  The 
    cassettes I'm getting will be CRO2, C-30s, white with white cases and 
    white blank labels.  They cost me about $2.30 each as I recall (would 
    have been $2.00 if I went with 100).  Jay could have charged me
    more for studio time, but didn't.  They are having a special on
    studio time of $20 per hour.  I think the regular rate is $40 per
    hour.  The rest of the costs were mostly for leader and tape.  I could 
    have gotten a cheaper price for the cassettes, but probably not better 
    quality.  So, my cost per tape if I just include cassette and cover 
    costs will be about $2.80.
    
    Jay was professional and fun to work with.  He's in a band and is 
    knowledgable about MIDI and equipment.  I think these folks deal
    with a lot of people that are on ego trips.  I think they enjoyed
    the fact that I was doing this for the sheer fun of it.  Made things
    a bit more relaxed.
    
    
    Steve
    

    re .38, Steve's album odyssey..
    
    I am about the same place.  I've gone to a duplicating service,
    where they made a 1/2 track 15ips dub master from my PCM VHS master, 
    and they are busily as I type doing realtime copies onto 70 usec chrome
    cassettes, 100 copies initial order. $1.60 per tape, plus $25 for
    the 1/2 track dub master time/material.
    
    As usual the cassette cover/insert has been a royal pain.  I became
    convinced that a COLOR cover was a must.  Found a Phoenix firm that
    does photographic color prints onto regular Kodak (tm) paper, 3
    covers per 8.5"x11" sheet.  Also got a third firm printing the sticky
    labels. 
    
    Goal : to get some holiday tape sales in Tucson stores.  To use
    the remainder of the 100 tapes (if there are any left) to do an
    organized mailing to the top 10 independent nationwide music
    distributors, complete with cover letter and, uh, 'press kit'.
    
    ever hopeful ! karl

    Gee, I just figured on giving them out as Christmas gifts ...
    
    Steve the poor

    How much did they hit you for per sheet of color covers?
    
    Anything above $1.00 and they're really raking it in.  Doing color
    8x10's myself in the kitchen sink only costs $.50 per frame.
    
    	-Bill

>    < Note 1771.41 by CTHULU::YERAZUNIS "Land of eternal moonlit nights!" >
>                         -< Cost on the color covers? >-
>    How much did they hit you for per sheet of color covers?

    101-500 sheets 8 1/2x11 = $1.55 per sheet.  At 3 covers per sheet
    that's $0.5166666 per color insert.  To get these prices using regular
    3/4 color offset printing, I'd have to contract for 5000 minimum.
    
>    Anything above $1.00 and they're really raking it in.  Doing color
>    8x10's myself in the kitchen sink only costs $.50 per frame.
    
    Uh, perhaps your overhead's lower ?
    
    I've been THROUGH this before.  I used to work in a print shop and
    set up color presses, do the camera shots of the artwork, etc. 
    3 color is EXPENSIVE ! So I found this firm that does it
    photographically.  As always, getting the master together and getting
    cassette dups is TRIVIAL compared to the cover artwork/printing.
    
    karl
    

    
    
    re: .-1
    
      Sounds like a job for a color copier.
    
    /pjh

    Yep!  Color copier, about 50 cents a frame.  And they are _good_
    frames!
    
    -----
    
    You're right about the overhead being lower for KSCS (Kitchen Sink
    Color System).  But the quality was right up there!
         
    	:-) 
    
    	-Bill

    Just to complete the story, my tapes arrived a few days ago and
    sound great.  The covers, on the other hand, haven't arrived and
    I'm blowing them off, figuring I'll save $50.  I'm using the stick-on
    labels (ran them through a copier).  It's sloppy, but okay.  I think
    one reason the covers didn't work out is because the girl that was
    taking the order didn't write things out correctly.  But, the cover
    wasn't that great anyway.  Next time I'll put more effort into it.
    I think I'll make this album thing an annual effort.  Makes Christmas
    expenses a little less while allowing me to give out more 'gifts'.
    
    Steve

    I made a decision regarding the covers.. I had them finish the artwork
    and do ONE color cover, which they're sending to me.  If it looks
    good, I'll go try a color copier.  If the color copies look good
    then that's what I'll do rather than having the more-expensive photo
    covers done.
    
    karl

    The Tape Store has fan-fold cassette stick on lables.  The last time I
    got a color copy was about 1980 and it was $1.  I just printed out my 
    covers on a printer and reduced them by half (71% twice) and cut them
    with an X-acto knife.  I print the labels on regular adress lables and
    cut them by hand.  Did I mention that I have sequenced all 16 years (7 
    hours) my music on 5 tapes in chronological order, roughly?  I've been 
    sending them around to people in experimental music radio,
    performers, to reviewers on the great cassette network out there,
    and to friends.  After hearing tapes, a chamber group
    in L.A. asked me to write a new piece for them.  Volume 6 will be just 
    Performance Art.  

    My current cassette presentation is prototype.  I'm evaluating 
    the use of nicer packaging.
    Tom

    > Did I mention that I have sequenced...
    
    Tom, not too long ago your (dare I say it?) *abhorance* for MIDI
    and all it's related hardware was almost legendary in this file.
    Yet, lately you've seemed to have had a change of heart.
    
    Can I ask you what your feelings are about hearing your music performed
    by a machine? 
    
    Edd

re: tom

Congratulations on the new request for a piece from the chamber group
in LA.  Every success from someone in COMMUSIC is a success for us all
to share and be happy about.  It doesn't matter how long you've been
doing the stuff either, a success is a success!

Chad

    I need some advice. My nephew wants to buy some multitrack capability.
    Since he is a poor college student his budget is limited to $500.
    Here's (are) the question(s): What should he buy? Should he opt
    for a four track cassette? or save his money and go DAT? How much
    four track will $500 buy these days? How much DAT? Other
    recommendations?
    
    		thanks in advance,
    		Mark

    DAT ain't multitrack and it starts in the ballpark of $1000.  I
    think he can get a 4-track cassette for that.
    
    Steve

    There's plenty of 4-track cassette dex under $500.  A recent issue
    of Electronic Musician had a tabular 'shootout' article.
    
    karl

    RE: .52
    
    Thanks karl,
    
    Which issue???
    
    	Mark
    

    re which Electronic Musician issue has the 4track cassette shootout..  
    
    Mark, I don't remember.. I gave it away to a friend who'd just bought
    an EPS and wanted to evaluate recording options.
    
    anybody else help out here ??
    
    karl

    I would like to know if anybody has some good ways of using, lets
    say a Midiverb II in the final mix to create a stereo image. As
    of now I have drums recorded on two tracks, hard panned left and
    right. What I'm looking for is some good technique for the final
    mix to pan things the right way for a true stereo image. I do have
    two effect sends with panning control.
    
     One suggestion I had was to bring up the pans on the left and right
    drum mix to 9 olcock on the left and 3 oclock on the right, then
    add the reverb mix out of phase (or the opposite panning).
    
    Any suggestion would be very interesting to me I'm in great need
    of understanding stereo processing.
    
    Mike___

    Well, the MV2 is not really stereo processing.  First thing it does
    is add left and right 'dry' signals together and process the mono
    result to create stereo output with effects (the 'wet' output).  The 'dry'
    signals are added to the 'wet' output.  The amount of 'mix' is
    controlled by a knob on the front.  It controls how 'wet' the final
    result will be.  If it's all 'dry', it will sound the same coming
    in as going out.  If it's all 'wet', what comes out is the result
    of the processing of the mono signal created by adding the 'dry'
    signals together.  Usually, you have the 'mix' somewhere inbetween
    so as to have plenty of effect without losing the positions of the
    instruments.
    
    Basically, the same rules hold true with most of the lower-end FX
    units.  I'm not sure where the 'true' stereo FX start, but for most
    purposes, this type of FX box is sufficient.
    
    Steve

    Synchronicity:
    
    I got talked into doing some background music for a
    caving video being produced by the Boston Grotto (caving
    club).
    
    I really didn't want to spend a lot of time on it; pretty much just
    wanted to throw together a basic drum pattern and play over it.
    
    I really wanted it to be in stereo, so basically what I did was
    to take the drums and run them thru a digital delay on a chorus-like
    setting (175ms, no feedback, low modulation).  
    
    One side is the dry signal (well, with reverb) and the other side
    is the delay signal.  Because I did it this way, there's no "panning" 
    at all.  Everything appears to the listener as being mixed dead center,
    however, I A/B'ed this method with a conventional stereo mix and my
    opinion was that with a little chorus, the drums had remarkable
    presence; the conventional mix seemed extremely flat by comparison.
    
    Now there are some problems with doing it this way:
    
    	o The drums sound very up-front in the mix.  I probably wouldn't
    	  do it this way for a piece where the drums weren't among the
    	  most significant parts.
    
        o In the setting I used, there was a very quick but discernable
          "slapback" type effect (from the delay obviously).  Since the
    	  piece was supposed to have an eerie kind of feel, I really
    	  liked it, but it wouldn't sound right on most other piece.
    
    	  Except maybe on the Toms.  I think a slight slapback on the
    	  toms sounds really cool and I may use that in the future.
    
      db

    re.57
    
            I have heard of that type of effect to simulate stereo on
    just about any type of mono track, this is for the person who has
    very limited tracks to work with. I never did try it but I think
    I'll give it a shot (just to see).
    
            My real problem is understanding what stereo imaging is
    all about. Is it creating sounds that tend to mix to the center
    of the room, and canning the old theroy of left, right???
    
    Mike___

    < Note 1771.58 by ELWOOD::CAPOZZO >
>            My real problem is understanding what stereo imaging is
>    all about. Is it creating sounds that tend to mix to the center
>    of the room, and canning the old theroy of left, right???
    
     A sound in the middle of the stereo field is a MONO signal, 'panned'
    straight up.. What Dave was doing with his drums was starting witha
    mono drum track and giving it a more spacious sound, with reverb
    in the left channel, delay in the right, and the original sound
    mixed straight up.
    
    We rarely hear one sound from one source.. we hear the original
    sound, plus the early/late reflections of it from the environment.
    That's what stereo reverbs do, take a MONO signal in and create
    a stereo field that is slightly different left-to-right.

    re: .58
    
    I'm not really sure I'd recommend this as a general effect to turn
    "just about any type of mono track" into a stereo track.
    
    Problem 1: if you do this for ALL tracks, what you'll probably end
    up with is a rather obnoxious "pulsing" effect not unlike the
    "breathing" problem you get in various noise reduction systems.
    
    That is I do NOT think you can use this to turn a COMPLETE mono
    mix into a stereo mix.  You could probably make it work by using
    a couple of delays (on slightly different settings) and sending
    one or two tracks to EACH delay.
    
    Problem 2: You have to be very careful with the amount and depth of
    modulation.  On non-harmonic instruments, like drums, a moderate amount
    of modulation really makes it sound great.
    
    However on harmonic instruments (keyboards, guitars, vocals, etc)
    moderate modulation can make things sound out of tune.  Short delays
    (or out-of-phase delays) can push them "back" in the mix, even if there
    not supposed to be there.  I also recently spoke of my perception that
    some short delay efx seem to rob midrange from vocals.
    
    So again, the answer is to use different delays on different settings
    for different tracks.  But how many of us have umpteen delays?
    
    In my experiments, the conclusion I'm coming to is that for each
    track you have to make a decision about that track and how you
    going to "stereoize" it or not;  and I think that you have to
    use COMBINATIONS of the options (can't do each track the same)
    in order to make a really "happening" stereo mix.
    
    Here are the options I sorta have to consider.  I regard that they
    each use the speakers either to create a "stereo effect", or to create
    a stereo image (left and right):
    
    	o Stereo delay (chorus/flange)
    
    	o Straight (center in the mix) - I would tend to do this for
    	  vocals as they will get a stereo reverb anyway
    
    	o Fixed Panning (panning instruments towards left or right)
    
    	o Modulated panning (sorta like wiggling the balance knob a couple
    	  of times a second - this is the only "stereo effect" that the ESQ-1
    	  and SQ-80 support)
    
    I may be showing a certain amount of radicalness, or maybe exposing
    myself as a "beginner" at all this, but I generally lean hard towards
    using the two speakers for "effects" rather than "image".  I really
    think the idea of having things panned one way or the other to recreate
    "what you would hear" if you sitting in the audience or something like
    that just doesn't do much in reality.
    
    I think in the future, my drums are gonna be panned dead center and
    just chorused to various degrees.   
    
    	db

    
    The idea of stereo "image" (as I see it, kaff, kaff...) is that
    what you are hearing in a recording is an *illusion*.  
    
    What you are trying to do with stereo processing is to give an illusion
    of an audio "space" by feeding the brain psychoacoustic clues which
    it will translate into a position.  That is, your brain will perceive
    a particular sound to be located in a particluar location.
    
    Unfortunately, when recording at home on four (or less) tracks and
    with only one or maybe two, if you're lucky, effects processors,
    it's difficult to get the detailed stereo image that you hear on
    most modern recordings.  That's why I prefer to mix into mono (am
    I the only one here who does?).

    In the early days of stereo, there was some really radical panning
    used.. like the early Beatles 'stereo' albums, where one speaker would
    have vocals/reverbed tambourine/lead guitar, and the other speaker
    would have everything else..
    
    Things HAVE changed.  Today, most of the signal is mono, with hard
    left/right used for reverb/delay returns and background parts.
    Of course, a tried and true method for setting up a stereo mix from
    multiple mono recorded tracks is :
    
    Left <--------------------- MONO ----------------------> Right
           V    V       V         V       V     V    V
                               DRUMS/BASS
                     Rhythm Guitar     Piano
               Perc                            Perc
        Lead Guitar                                Synth
                                VOCALS

    ... just by setting 'pan' positions..
    
    karl    

    The Beatles "all or nothing" panning was a consequence of George
    Martin's two track recording technique.  They were never intended
    to be released in "stereo"; they were designed to be mono only mixes.
    Capitol decided to use the two track masters as stereo masters.
    Martin was outraged, and has "corrected" this on the CD reissues.
    This has resulted in some fans being outraged by "losing" the "stereo"
    of the American releases on the CD reissues.
    
    len.
    

< Note 1771.63 by DRUMS::FEHSKENS >
>    The Beatles "all or nothing" panning was a consequence of George
>    Martin's two track recording technique.  They were never intended
>    to be released in "stereo"; they were designed to be mono only mixes.

    I knew that.. that's why I had 'stereo' in quotes..
    
.62>...like the early Beatles 'stereo' albums, where one speaker would
.62>have vocals/reverbed tambourine/lead guitar, and the other speaker
.62>would have everything else..

    And I bet that the 'stereo' (two track) was a direct result of 
    track assignment in the original recordings.. that is, all the rhythm
    section was recorded and bounced to one track (right speaker) and
    then the vocals/sweetening/lead guitar, etc. bounced to another
    track (left speaker).
    
    karl    

    Re: .64 <Beatles Trackology>

    You may want to check out a new book by Mike Lewisohn (the guy who
    compiled the two Past Masters CDs of Beatles singles/B-sides). The book
    is "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions" and is in a diary format
    (plus photos) of (what he claims) is every single recording session the
    Beatles ever did. There's lots of mention of which tracks contained what,
    some info on mix downs, covers the four track then 8 track days ...etc.

    It also shows how the producer role moved from Goerge Martin to being
    the Beatles themselves trying everything/anything. 

    I wouldn't say I "learnt" any new techniques but it was fun going back
    and listening to some CD tracks for say, where the edit point of two
    seperate takes where combined and so forth.

    Zayed

    
    I agree with Karl..ya gotta spread things out across the stereo
    spectrum. It's a tool, so why not use it. One thing that his diagram
    implies, that should be emphasized, is that the bass should be panned
    slightly off center to avoid conflict with the kick drum. The bottom
    end could sound muddy otherwise.
    
    However, your tracks are already laid down, and you don't have any
    left to play with, so I'd try what db suggested.
    
    CdH
    

    
    RE . 58 AND 65
    
    Hey Zayed looks like we both got the same christmas present. I would
    recommend this book to any home recordist to understand how to use
    your technology to meet the needs. Amazing !
    
    The book said that the reason he created the mixes that way. Was
    that they were recorded in 2 passes. Once for the Rhythm section
    and once for the rest !. They could then "mix" this later. 
    
    They also recorded the first album in 3  2.5 hour sessions.
    
    				Paul.
    
    
    

    .66 - you mentioned something that i've kind of painfully discovered.
    Bouncing the bass and drums together does muddle the low-end. I
    typically record in the following manner.
    
    		1. Drums - yep, i do it first, and sometimes i include
    		a waste miked track to keep things straight. It actually
    		helps me get a little more creative with the percussion
    		to do it this way.
    
    		2. Add the bass - since i want lot's of tightness in
    		the rythmn tracks, i do play it better when i have no
    		other instruments or voices to distract me.
    
    		3. Bounce them together! HOWever, things do get lost.
    		I have a very bad bass to begin with, and i have lost
    		some very good bass lines in the wash.
    
    	SOOOOoooooo,
    
    		I'll still do drums first.
    		Probably add guitar or keyboard or whatever is going
    		to be that background noise.
    		If short of real estate (no midi here and only 4 tracks)
    			THEN
    			Add Bass and Bounce
    			ELSE
    			Bounce drums and rythm part.
    
    	Also, i strongly second the notion of playing with the stereo
    field. It can profoundly effect the sound you put out, and certainly
    lets you spread out those sounds who don't get along so well. Matter
    of fact, i have to re-do a bass/guitar/drum bounce track that sounds
    like the multitimbral argument playing in a few favorite notes here!
    (no Edd, we're not tired, we love this stuff).
    
    	well, i've got to go figure out how to spell rithim.......
    					bs

    
    Re: .68
    
    EQ!!!  EQ!!!  EQ!!!
    
    When you mix the bass and drums together, you are going to get
    muddiness unless you EQ properly.  Look at it this way, the bass
    is situated between about 100 Hz and say 5 KHz.  The drums start
    below that and end above that (cymbals go way over 10 KHz). 
    
    Try EQing the drums so that you cut in the area from say 100 Hz
    to about 2 KHz to leave "space" for the bass signal.  The trouble
    with EQing a track to death by itself is that when you go to mix
    you may find a number of instruments competing for the same area
    of the frequency spectrum.
    
    Another trick is to record your tracks weak in the bass...i.e cut
    the low end, then boost it in the mix as you need it.  
    

    You should be able to mix the bass and drums together and not get
    "muddiness".  However, if you bounce them together you lose any
    ability to correct the balance between them in the final mix.
    
    I tend to assign them to different tracks, although I may combine
    other things with them.  My rationale is that if I bounce guitar
    and bass together, I can still bring each up or down indepedently
    by using EQ.
    
    If you're getting muddiness I would think you can fix it up with
    EQ and/or by ducking the bass guitar under the bass drum.
    
    	db