[REMOVE ADS]




Results 1 to 40 of 40
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295

    Why does this forum avoid audio/technical discussions?

    Well? I notice a strange aversion to the issue. Before we changed over to this forum software, there were always discussions about recording and mixing, and the industry pros would join in. Now...nothing. The minute someone does attempt to talk about technical things and audio, you all change the subject to concerts, start posting successive YouTube videos, or ignore it completely. What's up with that? Don't you want people like Tom Moulton, Bob Ollshon, and Russ Terrana in here again?
    Last edited by soulster; 05-05-2015 at 04:41 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    43,221
    Rep Power
    600
    I can't speak for anyone else, but I learn from the technical discussions on here.

  3. #3
    supremester Guest
    I would guess lack of interest. What do you think it might be?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    So far there's been 63 views and only one response. But, you look at some other types of threads, and there are hundreds, even thousands of replies.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,680
    Rep Power
    193
    My guess would be either a lack of interest and/or a lack of knowledge in the technical aspects. As they say, you can lead a horse to water...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by antceleb12 View Post
    My guess would be either a lack of interest and/or a lack of knowledge in the technical aspects. As they say, you can lead a horse to water...
    Sure. But, what happened between the days of the old forum and this one? Something happened. Like I said, on the old forum, there were a lot more threads about the technical side of things. And, there has been interest in audio. So, what gives? Many soul music fans care about audio too.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,680
    Rep Power
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by soulster View Post
    Sure. But, what happened between the days of the old forum and this one? Something happened. Like I said, on the old forum, there were a lot more threads about the technical side of things. And, there has been interest in audio. So, what gives? Many soul music fans care about audio too.
    My guess would be a lot of those who used to engage no longer participate in the forum. There are a handful of members who stopped participating once the switch happened.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    21,797
    Rep Power
    460
    I think that if Diana Ross expressed interest in a technical matter, you would immediately have discussion and contrary views.

    Beyond that, I think most people are satisfied with how they listen to music and with the variety of options available, they are happy with the sound they have.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    389
    I know a few who don't post any more and that is a shame. UPTIGHT was the man who used to always help me with explanations in words that I understood.

    I get lost with the technicalities these days and quite frankly, as I get older and my hearing worsens, it becomes less important.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    101,510
    Rep Power
    1338
    I've always appreciated the technical input of Soulster's posts.

    Time constraints seem to dictate that, perhaps in common with many here, my own input and interest in other posts does generally tend towards the superficial and often-repeated topics. In short, just chatter.....

    That said, and just as an example, if there were to be any audio/technical discussions which are specific to well-known tracks [[how the sound was recorded, mixed etc, how this effect or that sequence was achieved, etc..) they would certainly be welcomed by me.

    I could relate to that, as greater understanding will always enhance experience of a favourite topic.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    123
    I’d be happy to read more, but I’m neither audiophile or technician so I don’t know what to ask! It’s an interesting subject and I agree that more such posts would be welcome. I think it’s lack of knowledge that keeps us from asking.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,741
    Rep Power
    204
    Maybe this question should be asked directly to Tom Moulton, Bob Ollshon, and Russ Terrana

    Roger

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    43,221
    Rep Power
    600
    The technical questions I have sometimes have to do with the of music and recordings that are generally off topic for this forum like "ELO"

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    I think jobetrob nailed it. Most are not really interested in the tech side of music production, but choose to focus on the finished product. Believe me, if I furnished a new area called a tech room or some such thing it would get very little action.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,617
    Rep Power
    642
    I'm interested in a lot of the technical side of the industry but my familiarity with it is limited to the consumer software on my computer and the soundboard at church. Neither of which gives me any confidence that I have any input toward a technically-themed thread. That being said, I've learned a lot from them, especially from the discussions like the loudness war that was here a couple of months ago.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    14,979
    Rep Power
    402
    Name:  av-5.jpg
Views: 409
Size:  21.1 KB
    Bob Ohlsson, Mike McLean, and some other sound engineers used to post here, and some others, like Ralph and a few more would post on those threads. But, most of the technical pros don't post here anymore.
    Last edited by robb_k; 05-06-2015 at 07:23 PM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by ralpht View Post
    I think jobetrob nailed it. Most are not really interested in the tech side of music production, but choose to focus on the finished product. Believe me, if I furnished a new area called a tech room or some such thing it would get very little action.
    How do you know that? Try it and invite some of the pros to start threads and participate. If i'm wrong, you can take it back out.

    My point, Ralph, is that there used to be many discussions about it. It could come back. Don Davis is gone, but i'm sure there are lots of people still around who could talk about how all those P-funk, Johnnie Taylor, and even Marilyn McCoo & Billy Davis Jr. albums were recorded. I'm certain that there are still lots of stories to be told about how Motown was recorded and mixed.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by robb_k View Post
    Name:  av-5.jpg
Views: 409
Size:  21.1 KB
    Bob Ohlsson, Mike McLain, and some other sound engineers used to post here, and some others, like Ralph and a few more would post on those threads. But, most of the technical pros don't post here anymore.
    Exactly, and they don't because of certain other "issues" on this forum. But, they can be found on other forums, and on their own websites. Time and time again, it has been shown that the reason the pros leave forums like this is because of the rudeness and cat fights of some of the more antagonistic members. they don't have time for that.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    761
    Rep Power
    174
    The rudeness and cat fights can be pointed to as a reason why some people left. The bigger issue is FACEBOOK, which no one seems to want to admit to.

    If Facebook shut down tomorrow, everyone would be back in here within 15 minutes, posting ALL day EVERY day just like they used to.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    Just a few short weeks ago I brought Ken Sands on. They don't get much more credible then Ken, who has seen and done it all. He was virtually ignored and the thread died. So why the complaints?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    And several years ago Mike McLean came on. If you don't know the guy he can be misunderstood. I got complaints that he was somewhat rude etc etc. Hey...That's Mike McLean. You have to really know the dude to understand him.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,898
    Rep Power
    215
    Lets have more tech! I know nothing about it but like Marv I like to hear about these things.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    131
    Rep Power
    168
    I have not posted in several years. I check in now and then, but the forum doesn't hold much interest for me. And it is not because of Facebook.

    What really interested me in the early years were posts by individuals who directly participated in the creation of the music; including the technical side.

    In particular, posts by Mike McLean were especially insightful and entertaining [[Chris Clark) as well!

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    But that is my point, John. Ken Sands was ignored and he has a wealth of stories to tell, but the thread died. Then I feel bad because I'm the one who talked him into coming on the forum.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by mellow_q View Post
    The rudeness and cat fights can be pointed to as a reason why some people left. The bigger issue is FACEBOOK, which no one seems to want to admit to.
    I'll admit to it, and that's a very good point. Facebook and Twitter are like a cross between traditional message boards like this and instant messaging. The bonus is that even if you attempt to conceal your identity, they can be easily discovered. Message boards attract trolls, especially those with little or no moderation. You know, it's funny: the record industry people don't like dealing with anonymous people, but they use anonymity when they can.

    Facebook and Twitter allow companies to get feedback from the world at large, while message boards are usually exclusive to membership.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by ralpht View Post
    Just a few short weeks ago I brought Ken Sands on. They don't get much more credible then Ken, who has seen and done it all. He was virtually ignored and the thread died. So why the complaints?

    Who's Ken Sands?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by ralpht View Post
    And several years ago Mike McLean came on. If you don't know the guy he can be misunderstood. I got complaints that he was somewhat rude etc etc. Hey...That's Mike McLean. You have to really know the dude to understand him.
    I know about Mike because I read a long interview with him in a High Fidelity or Stereo Review magazine back in the early 90s, but I never picked up on any rudeness.. It was from that magazine that I became familiar with him. That goes for a lot of industry guys like Tom Dowd and Bill Inglot, too. Before then, they were just names on the record label to me. I have always been interested in how recordings we love came to be, so that's why I studied their work.

    As far as any perceived rudeness is concerned, these record people are just like anyone else. A lot of them have rotten social skills, and repugnant political views, but, so does anyone else. A lot of them are shy and timid, and really nice. I think a lot of these guys know how they are, so they tends to shy away from the public. The more meek ones know how rotten the general public is, so they shy away.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by ralpht View Post
    But that is my point, John. Ken Sands was ignored and he has a wealth of stories to tell, but the thread died. Then I feel bad because I'm the one who talked him into coming on the forum.
    If there was just a way we could turn this forum away from being a Perez Hilton Jr. forum, we could get this place back to what it used to be. But, that is going to take some determination and patience.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    101,510
    Rep Power
    1338
    Would it perhaps be possible for Soulster or Ralph to conduct online Q&A sessions here [[maybe in the format of an forum magazine article) with individuals who are considered notable in their field [[Mike McLean, Ken Sands, Russ Terrana), which the rest of us could then at least read, but also post a comment if we wish, or an additional enquiry, to add to the discussion? Maybe some spin-off threads?

    The figures strongly suggest that many, maybe all, of the threads here are read by far more people than those who actually post any feedback. Also, there would always seem to be many more people in total who are reading the threads, than are actually signed in. Some of these readers must surely be actual members who do not post very much, if at all.

    The enjoyment and appreciation of SDF is still being felt by those who silently read what they see on the screen but, simply because it is difficult to assess exactly to what degree, shouldn't mean it should go unrecognised that they are indeed out there, they are valuable, and what they read is valuable to them.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    I have to take issue with a couple of you. Firstly, I highly doubt this forum can be compared to Perez Hilton. Give me a break.
    Also, some of you take the stance that SD isn't what it once was. Please don't insult me that way. I bend over backward to please the membership. And if things are so bad, why am I signing up a number of people each week that wish to join us?

    I'll tell you guys what: Even if I decided to create a completely new thread dedicated to the tech side of the recording arts, it wouldn't last long. Some other complaints would arise. If I sound a little peeved, I am. The next time I talk an engineer to come on and he gets ignored, don't ask for anything more.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Good point, westgrand! This thread has already caused one longtime lurker to post again. I have to believe there are a LOT of people interested in the behind-the-scenes work, but do not post. You can't see them if they aren't active. Their participation is the only thing that can counteract the trend of this place being a fan/gossip/obituary forum. For that participation, they need more of a variety of music-related topics.

    You also presented an excellent idea! I don't know if I have enough of a journalistic prowess to conduct an interview with one of those studio rats [[affectionate reference), but my questions would center around the technical aspects of what they do, not whom they worked with. I could work up some questions, or, someone else could take up the task. I know a lot of these guys love to talk shop because it is at the core of what they do. And, this is the place.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by ralpht View Post
    I have to take issue with a couple of you. Firstly, I highly doubt this forum can be compared to Perez Hilton. Give me a break.
    Also, some of you take the stance that SD isn't what it once was. Please don't insult me that way. I bend over backward to please the membership. And if things are so bad, why am I signing up a number of people each week that wish to join us?

    I'll tell you guys what: Even if I decided to create a completely new thread dedicated to the tech side of the recording arts, it wouldn't last long. Some other complaints would arise. If I sound a little peeved, I am. The next time I talk an engineer to come on and he gets ignored, don't ask for anything more.
    I understand the way you feel, and I regret if I am part of it! I've loved watching your pieces on YouTube and always wish you would post more frequently. As I said earlier my problem is that I'm not remotely a technician nor audiophile, so I love reading the technical posts but simply don't have the knowledge base to comment on them. My questions would probably be inane.

    Here's one I always think of - when I listen to ANY recording from say 1963 through 1974, there seems to be an aural "shimmer" around the sound of the recording. This happens across many different labels [[Motown, Chess, etc) so it's not just a specific-studio sound. Now here's my question - is that "shimmer" due to the type of master tape used at the time, the type of equipment, another technical aspect, or just my emotional connection to the music?

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    Robert,
    I guess I would need to know what exactly"shimmer" is to you. My first thought was the sound of live echo chambers so popular at the time. But I may be missing your point.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by ralpht View Post
    I have to take issue with a couple of you. Firstly, I highly doubt this forum can be compared to Perez Hilton. Give me a break.
    My apologies for using such hyperbole, but I submit that a lot of the time when I log on, what I see isn't too far off the mark.

    Also, some of you take the stance that SD isn't what it once was. Please don't insult me that way. I bend over backward to please the membership. And if things are so bad, why am I signing up a number of people each week that wish to join us?
    I think you misinterpreted this. We are not saying that you don't do a good job of balancing the freedom of expression with maintaining a climate of respect. Most forums, in contrast, enforce a laundry list of rules with an iron fist. In fact, I don't know of any forum that allows the membership the latitude we enjoy here. I've seen you give members with the most egregious behavior many chances to correct themselves before banishment. Few moderators have that kind of patience. This place has improved a lot in the last several months with regard to the nastiness.

    What we are saying is that we detect a different...vibe here that has nothing to do with you. I can certainly understand if you do take that personally. It is your forum. For my interest, there was once more of an emphasis on the behind the scenes. What happened? I have some clues.

    Obviously, a different crop of people are getting something out of SDF now that we longtimers no longer do, or as frequently as we once did. If there are more people who feel like me, please speak up. Quit lurking!

    I'll tell you guys what: Even if I decided to create a completely new thread dedicated to the tech side of the recording arts, it wouldn't last long. Some other complaints would arise.
    I never even saw the one with Ken Sands...and i'll have to do some research on his work.... It must have sank fast! This is the first i'm hearing of it. It tells me that the gear heads, and those interested, need to speak up and participate. I notice the tendency for those not interested in the current topics to simply shy away instead of being more proactive. Things don't magically turn around to topics that interest them. The only other thing I can think is that there is a group of members who are purposely attempting to suppress technical topics out of spite, or whatever, on the idea that if they just don't respond that "it will go away".

    If I sound a little peeved, I am. The next time I talk an engineer to come on and he gets ignored, don't ask for anything more.
    That's sounds like a deal.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by ralpht View Post
    Robert,
    I guess I would need to know what exactly"shimmer" is to you. My first thought was the sound of live echo chambers so popular at the time. But I may be missing your point.
    The first thing I thought when he used the term "shimmer" was an aural exciter. But, those didn't become popular until the late 70s, and i'm not aware of any type of processing used on anything prior to that.

    I can say that by the late 60s, studios started using 16 and 24-track recording with close-miking techniques in acoustically "dead" studios.

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    123
    I'll have to come up with a few examples of records to see what you guys think; one that comes to mind is Lulu's "Oh Me, Oh My" which was recorded in Muscle Shoals for Atco. A direct contrast that comes to mind would be Joni Mitchell's 80s-90s work which was what Mitchell herself calls "sizzle and fry" technology - the resulting overall "sound" of the recordings is very different, even though they are both white, female, pop-ish singers. Mitchell may not be a good example though because I believe the "instruments" on those recordings were largely computerized ... more "shimmer" records to follow!

    Right now the live echo chamber sounds like it may be the thing -

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    123
    PS: If any/either of you guys are familiar with the contemporary DapTone records [[Sharon Jones, Budos Band, etc) they are able to make/replicate the "shimmer" I hear.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertZ View Post
    I'll have to come up with a few examples of records to see what you guys think; one that comes to mind is Lulu's "Oh Me, Oh My" which was recorded in Muscle Shoals for Atco. A direct contrast that comes to mind would be Joni Mitchell's 80s-90s work which was what Mitchell herself calls "sizzle and fry" technology - the resulting overall "sound" of the recordings is very different, even though they are both white, female, pop-ish singers. Mitchell may not be a good example though because I believe the "instruments" on those recordings were largely computerized ... more "shimmer" records to follow!

    Right now the live echo chamber sounds like it may be the thing -
    The 80s and 90s recordings were digital. And, with the types of converters used in those days, the sound was likely hard and cold.

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertZ View Post
    PS: If any/either of you guys are familiar with the contemporary DapTone records [[Sharon Jones, Budos Band, etc) they are able to make/replicate the "shimmer" I hear.
    To me, "shimmer" means a high-frequency rise.

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,373
    Rep Power
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by jobeterob View Post
    I think that if Diana Ross expressed interest in a technical matter, you would immediately have discussion and contrary views.

    Beyond that, I think most people are satisfied with how they listen to music and with the variety of options available, they are happy with the sound they have.
    I couldn't agree more. I'm quite satisfied with the audio system I currently own. My Sherwood receiver and Cerwin Vega speakers were purchased back in 1994 and still kicks ass. I'm listening to Funk for most of the time anyway, so my system takes care of business quite well.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

[REMOVE ADS]

Ralph Terrana
MODERATOR

Welcome to Soulful Detroit! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
Soulful Detroit is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to Soulful Detroit. [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.