Mike Rivers

I have several 20 and 30 GB hard drives from around Y2K, any of which has played when I've tried them. The most important thing, as someone mentioned, is that the heads are now all lifted off the platters when the drive is powered down, so they don't get glued in place like they used to. But there's no free lunch. In the days of the 20 GB IDE drive, you got a real solid piece of hardware. While I've personally never had a mechanical failure, the 120GB and larger drives are just not built quite as solidly as the old ones, and there are more "series" drives some with warranties as short as 3 years, which should tell you something about the confidence the manufacturers have in their product. My philosophy about backups is that I've never needed one, so I some day I do need one and it doesn't work, it's probably not that important. I've never recorded anyone who has enough money to sue me if I can't come up with their recording from 20 years ago.

I usually don't listen to interviews with famous engineers/producers/musicians, but since this is Craig, and someone I know a bit, I gave it a shot and ended up listening through the whole thing. Like so much of Craig's writings, the interview isn't just "how do you do this?" or "what's your favorite," but here, Craig addresses the question with an explanation of how he thinks about the problem in front of him, what he's really trying to accomplish, and what would be the most efficient route to the solution, given the tools that he has and knows how to use. As part of his approach to the solution, he explains what the tool does in order to get closer to what he's seeking. This is important because not only does it show the route to the answer, but teaches you about his particular choice of tool and what it does to change the sound, and in what way. So even if you don't have the same plug-in that he chose to work with, you can probably take the same approach with a plug-in that you have. He also stresses the importance of not trying to duplicate a sound that was used on another recording, but to decide, for the particular project at hand, what you want it to sound like, and use the tool to accomplish that. He doesn't let us forget that it's your music and it needs to sound like you. As a hardware person (I built several things from Craig's Electronic Projects for Musicians), his approach to designing a device came through loud and clear - listen to what you've built does, and if it doesn't do what you need, change something (or try a different approach). I guess this is why I've always enjoyed his writings and, whether I need the tool he's describing, I learn what it does, why it works, and have something to file away in my feeble memory to dredge out if I'm looking for a new tool that worked for him in a similar situation. I have to comment, though, on his assessment of tape as being horrid and getting rid of it was a great thing. Tape isn't horrid, but it requires maintenance and understanding - which is really no different than with software, just a different skill set required. I'm not a defender of the "it's the tape that makes the recordings we love the most sound the way they do." But by the time that tape was almost entirely phased out of the recording/production field, tape recorders were amazingly good - though the need for maintenance and understanding never went away. So I understand steering most contemporary recordists away from tape is a good idea, and to set aside the belief that your work will never sound a particular way without tape. But tape recording should be treated with more respect. But, anyhow, if you have an hour, listening to this interview is a great way to learn how Craig thinks through problems and comes up with solutions that are practical, gets them music to sounding how he wants it, and learn something about the technology or process along the way.

Thursday, May 6, 2021, at Noon PDT (3 PM Eastern time) The Recording Academy® Atlanta Chapter and Producers & Engineers Wing® to Premiere "Story of Muscle Shoals: Studios Scene & Heard" on Facebook Live This online event "Story of Muscle Shoals: Studios Scene & Heard," discusses the history and legacy of the legendary recording hub of Muscle Shoals, Alabama. Ben Tanner takes attendees on an insider tour of the Muscle Shoals music scene, featuring interviews with owners and producers from both "today's music makers" as well as the legendary recording professionals. Rodney Hall, iconic owner of FAME Studio/FAME Publishing; David Hood, co-founder of Muscle Shoals Sound; GRAMMY® winner Jimmy Nutt, owner of The Nutthouse; Jamie Sego, owner/engineer of Portside Sound; and GRAMMY winners Ben Tanner (Alabama Shakes) and John Paul White (Civil Wars), co-owners of Sun Drop Studios will be the participants and presenters To watch the live session: Click here or for the click-suspicious: https://www.facebook.com/36736245747/posts/10158361372325748/?d=n

An interesting car fact just in: Tesla made more money last year by selling carbon emission credits than they made selling cars. What's wrong with this system?

Bill gives great talks on interfacing audio signals - shielding, grounding, balanced, unbalanced, etc. 8 PM Eastern time - This is a Zoom session sponsored by the Detroit AES chapter. Details in the George Massenburg forum, just because things were getting a little lonely over there. Details posted here.

At 8 PM Eastern time on April 27, Bill Whitlock will be giving a talk via Zoom for the Detroit AES chapter. Bill is the king of grounding, shielding, balanced and unbalanced connections, and power distribution and safety. He gives great seminars. Bill will review how signal interfaces work and how they reject (or not) noise from various sources. He'll de-bunk some widely-held myths about interfaces, including the right ways to drive a balanced input from an unbalanced source and vice-versa. These topics, and others, are currently being discussed in AES Standards working group SC-05-05. Here's the link to join the meeting. Advance reservations don't seem to be required, just jump on at 8 or whatever time that is where you are. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86293910563?pwd=d1I0SGRlRUQ5aUhEN05sTnBZYUZDQT09 Or if that link didn't come through the wash correctly, just go to Zoom.com and enter the Meeting ID and Passcode below. Meeting ID: 862 9391 0563 Passcode: 453912

And who can forget The Collins Kids - Who actually grew up and Larry had a pretty long career in music over his lifetime. [video:youtube]

I'm wondering if the "do" or "don't" controversy is a matter of the age of the guitar. A guitar built in 1920, played, and taken care of probably sounded better in 1950 than it did when it was new, because of the materials it was built from and how they age together. But then, how would you know that? Our auditory memory is only about 5 seconds, and there probably wasn't a very good recording of that guitar in 1920. On the other hand, a guitar built in 1995 probably would sound about the same as new today because it's put together with different glue, finished with different lacquer, and the wood was aged in a different way than they did it in 1920. And if you recorded the guitar when you first got it, and 25 years later used the same microphone to record it and even if you record it in the same room with the same setup, it'll sound different - because you'll be playing it differently, for better or worse. Questions - Does the guitar sound good now? If so, it's a keeper Does it sound so-so now? If so, play it until you find one that sounds better (and can afford it)

I think you should need a license to post a video on YouTube.

My Ampex MM1100 had one VU meter with a bent needle. Prince dropped in to the studio that owned it before me and spent a couple of hours working alone on a couple of songs. He apologized for damaging the meter (a punch-in with too much gain) and offered to pay for replacement, but the studio decided they'd rather have the story than a new meter. I've heard of people hanging an acoustic guitar in front of a loudspeaker and playing loud music at it for a few days to "break it in." I don't know if that actually worked, but the idea of breaking in a loudspeaker is well known.

I wrote a review of the original DR-40 for my web site. Your testimony here should be enough to get him to order one, but for a more in-depth review, it's here (PDF) for the reading.

No, it's a genuine D-18, one that's hung on the wall, out of the case, for most of its life.

This on is pretty much like I got it at a pawnshop auction in 1967. The sticker you can see inside the sound hole isn't from Martin, it's from an axe factory in Maine that a friend of mine visited, and brought it back for me. It reads "The Peerless Axe" and that's about what it's been to me since I've had it.

This on is pretty much like I got it at a pawnshop auction in 1967.

You can pay double or more for a pair of jeans that are pre-ripped and threadbare. Why not a guitar?

I think that what Lynn did here is a pretty good demonstration of what you can remove from a sound file and have a clean and listenable experience. But I want to know from the NASA folks what's Martian about the sound? Honestly, that could be a recording of me getting out of bed in the morning. Without knowing what it really sounds like up there, we don't know what we should cut out and leave behind. Hooray for getting there. Now somebody should sample the Mars ambience and make a plug-in from it.

If that's important to you, why bother with the re-recorded versions? You can buy the originals and they'll sound the same, to the extent, anyway, how different "mastered" versions differ, either intentionally or unintentionally. But unless the owner of the masters offers a re-mix, it will still be the same performance as the original.

Today, April 11, is International Louie Louie day. OK, everybody, one, two, three : a-Louie Louie, Oh, No, say We Gotta Go

Acoustic guitar? Doesn't sound like my acoustic guitars, so I guess I'll still have a job. But the piano does sound very much like a piano, particularly through the AEA mic.

Thanks you two. Sounds weird, but I guess that's (sounding weird) one of the tools of certain genres of music. Just plain guitar amplifier tremolo sounds weird to me, too, but there are places where, to me, it works and is essential to that sound. Bo Diddly is one who made it a trademark, Roebuck Staples is another.

It's not just a predominant effect, it's the musical definition of each one. Perceptually, there may be some crossover, but that's something that's interpreted by individual listeners who are not necessarily trained listeners nor trained musicians.

Please explain what "multiband tremolo" is? Does "multiband" refer to amplitude modulation of selected frequency bands? So, for example, the low frequency range of a guitar would remain with its natural amplitude level but the mid-range would be affected by the envelope modulation? How do you do that? Is it like multiband compression where different frequency bands get compressed differently? Does your favorite DAW allow you to separate frequency bands of a track for individual processing? That could let you get into all sorts of trouble. I know that, in the context of amplified instruments, tremolo is amplitude modulation, which affects all frequencies equally. I have an Ampeg Reverbrocket with a "Tremolo" knob that not only increases the depth of amplitude modulation but also, the waveform changes in harmonic content (distortion) as you turn the knob up - probably a planned or unplanned accident resulting in overdriving something in the tremolo signal generator path. That would result in a change in harmonic content of the input (musical) signal as well as the overall amplitude. Would Bo Diddly approve? (and I wrote that before I read Kuru's post on the subject)

The beauty of live recording is that other than some tweaks and edits, when it's over, it's done.

I hope so. I also think that what goes up doesn't necessarily have to come down. That higher level of compensation might be the new normal and not come down any time soon...sort of the opposite of how a lower level of compensation is the new normal for magazine authors, and I don't think it's going up in the future. The trouble with economics and laws of supply and demand is that when the supply is low and demand high, less of that "high demand" will be able to afford the higher wages that the limited supply hopes to be paid. Will concerts become more expensive? Probably. Will the guy with the van who hauls the band's gear to the bar and back get more than gas money? Probably not.

I'll get the lights.