Robots getting rich listening to robots!

[OneWorld]

Now, you might be the kind of man that could toss a little girl's teddy into a pot of boiling water, but I couldn't.

Your words, not mine. I suggest you reflect on them carefully, if it is possible.

I will give benefit of doubt for that insult and consider your response being emboldened by being anonymous. You simply weaponised my response out of context.

There is no point adding anything to this as it descended into reactionary nonsense and why I felt it was the right time to rest where I did, the correct judgement, proven perfectly.

Clearly the diverse nature of the creep is going to move so widely across every aspects of society it is quite difficult to pin down the conversation to music specific consequences alone. Some may be good, some may be bad, and then there will likely be the equivalent of the underground which will to entirely unknowable. Just a few rogue operators may have the potential for unknown and unlimited damage.

Let's hope data / access security / is as well funded as the rest of it.

The consequences are unknowable and that is why caution and awareness of the highest level is both the goal and aim.

I will no longer make any commentary on anything surrounding this very broad topic. I have much more important things to be doing like mastering music at the highest level.

None of us are or will be in control of any of the outcomes.

On this matter I wish everyone the best including OneWorld.

On reflection - I didn't write you 'were' I wrote you "you might" be two different things, just the same as saying "pigs might fly" It's a turn of phrase oh Master.

"On this matter I wish everyone the best including OneWorld."

I have to admit, I've had a look at what services you offer, and genuinely, joking aside (yes, even I can be 'serious' on occasions, but it's a struggle) I am well impressed. You are clearly on top of your game.

[Albatross]

I have to admit, I've had a look at what services you offer, and genuinely, joking aside (yes, even I can be 'serious' on occasions, but it's a struggle) I am well impressed. You are clearly on top of your game.

But if you could get a robot to master your track to a reasonable level for a tenner then you would employ it?

[OneWorld]

I have to admit, I've had a look at what services you offer, and genuinely, joking aside (yes, even I can be 'serious' on occasions, but it's a struggle) I am well impressed. You are clearly on top of your game.

But if you could get a robot to master your track to a reasonable level for a tenner then you would employ it?

Well I'm a believer in sharing out, so my benevolence is scattered about the firmanent, that said I cannot walk by a bargain, so I might haggle a bit in the interests of equality, with the stereo track, the robot can master one side and the human can master the other, though they'd have to work in concert with each other, to get the stereo image right.

That said, we'll have to embrace new technology to one degree or another. A friend of mine quite a successful studio, I won't name drop, suffice it to say he did well for himself. But I remember when he was first starting out, and I'd go to his studio and there was always something new, and I remember the most concerning addition that was foreboding, could it put studios out of business.

So I went to his studio one day and he was leaping like a demented flea, after having taking delivery of some new technology "What's this new gadget you're delirious about? what is it and what does it do, will it make me a star?"

He replied "It's a DAW"

I remarked "A daw? what sort of daw, a jackdaw or a skiddaw or what?"

He explained "It's a studio in a box" and he went on to show me flying faders, sound appearing on the computer - it's magic I exclaimed.

I thought about and could see his 16 track tape machine and analogue mixer and thought "I'm going to miss you" but relented and said "Now usually, I'm not one to DAWdle about, but in this instance, yep, let's get cracking" He said "Anyway, you're a star already"

Well actually, I added that last bit, for effect

As far as I know, the 16 track is sat in a corner somewhere collecting dust, too good to be junked I'm sure.

But to answer your question directly, I am inclined to say I'd always go for the human, not the robot, I come from a family of crafts-people, all highly regarded in their chosen craft, and the added value is, with a human, there is the opportunity for dialogue, someone to answer those "why", "what" questions, though "how" they'd quite rightly keep to themselves.

As it happens, and much to my surprise, we never know what Fate has planned for us, I have taken up the role of carer, circumstances often appear least when we expect them, and goodness, shout out to all carers out there, it's a blody hard job - but in doing it the other day, I thought to myself, I simply cannot envisage a robot doing this, the empathy, the uncomplaining approach, one has to remember, we might feel inclined to chide the person that needs the care, when they get nowty and tetchy, but they are ill, and we have to hold our counsel and get on with the job.

Ask me the question again, if I needed care, would I want a £10 a pop robot doing an acceptable job, or would I prefer the comfort of the human touch, despite the cost? And that puts things in perspective for me.

[James Perrett]

As far as I know, the 16 track is sat in a corner somewhere collecting dust, too good to be junked I'm sure.

He's obviously working with the wrong clients. I'm in the middle of a project that has been recorded to tape and then transferred to digital for mixing. That seems to be a fairly common way of working.

[OneWorld]

As far as I know, the 16 track is sat in a corner somewhere collecting dust, too good to be junked I'm sure.

He's obviously working with the wrong clients. I'm in the middle of a project that has been recorded to tape and then transferred to digital for mixing. That seems to be a fairly common way of working.

It would be indiscrete to explain why, but suffice it to say, the studio sort of remains in aspic

[MOF]

He's obviously working with the wrong clients. I'm in the middle of a project that has been recorded to tape and then transferred to digital for mixing. That seems to be a fairly common way of working.

I would have thought a hybrid way of working at the recording stage would have been better i.e. drums to tape with levels set to 'saturate to taste' then add other instruments in the digital domain.

[James Perrett]

I would have thought a hybrid way of working at the recording stage would have been better i.e. drums to tape with levels set to 'saturate to taste' then add other instruments in the digital domain.

We're going for an old sound for this project so need the tape sound on everything. The levels going to tape are much higher than I would have used in the days when tape was the only option.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Amusing that getting 'the vintage analogue sound' means overdriving the gear in ways we'd never have dreamed of doing at the time!

[RichardT]

Some people clearly love the analogue sound - and that's fine. For me personally it's like deliberately making recordings sound less like the real instruments do!

I do understand though why people might like it - real instruments often don't sound nice. I remember the first time I played cabasa. It's a sound you wouldn't want in your living room (without earplugs).

[James Perrett]

Amusing that getting 'the vintage analogue sound' means overdriving the gear in ways we'd never have dreamed of doing at the time!

It is more of a case that you can't get hold of old lower output tapes these days. A quick search shows that EMI type 825 tape has a saturation point 6dB lower than the RTM 911 tape that I'm using here.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Sure, but we lined the machines up with lower flux levels too to avoid that saturation.

[James Perrett]

Sure, but we lined the machines up with lower flux levels too to avoid that saturation.

In this case we are going for a more heavily compressed Joe Meek type of sound.

[OneWorld]

If there's a demand for the older sound, true analogue, then maybe they might like my voice, it's old, and it's analogue, mind you, so is a Dansette

[BigRedX]

If there's a demand for the older sound, true analogue, then maybe they might like my voice, it's old, and it's analogue, mind you, so is a Dansette

I loved my Dansette. Not withstanding the fact that it was all I could afford back in 70s I got so used to the sound that when I finally had the disposable income to buy some real HiFi it never sound as "good" on my older records.

[OneWorld]

If there's a demand for the older sound, true analogue, then maybe they might like my voice, it's old, and it's analogue, mind you, so is a Dansette

I loved my Dansette. Not withstanding the fact that it was all I could afford back in 70s I got so used to the sound that when I finally had the disposable income to buy some real HiFi it never sound as "good" on my older records.

My cherished piece of tech back in the day was a Fidelity red to reel. I used to lug it around everywhere. The first LP I bought was the first Rolling Stones album, which I ‘pirated’ onto tape so I could take it to parties without fear of the vinyl getting scratched or pinched. I spent all my waking hours fiddling about with that Fidelity to the extent, somehow found a way to overdub, my very first experience of sound on sound and soon I was making music that looped around and I could dub over it - Steve Reich, step aside, I was getting accidental polyrhythmic music due to the fact the timing of my overdubs wasn’t in sync, so I would those quirky off beat and delayed beats that sounded quite ‘odd’ but at the same time very musical in a strange way.

It wasn’t long before I was lusting after a Ferrograph, or even a Brunel, oh my, a thing dreams. I ended up with a second hand 4 track Dokorder and now quest was ended - multitrack recording, or so I thought, turned out my quest had just begun and then coming across Sound on Sound magazine became the ideal companion!

[Arpangel]

If there's a demand for the older sound, true analogue, then maybe they might like my voice, it's old, and it's analogue, mind you, so is a Dansette

I loved my Dansette. Not withstanding the fact that it was all I could afford back in 70s I got so used to the sound that when I finally had the disposable income to buy some real HiFi it never sound as "good" on my older records.

I had a Dansette for awhile, there’s something about those old machines that just makes things sound "right" somehow you don’t notice you don’t have any bass, or real top end, it doesn’t seem to make any difference, when I got a Philco valve stereogram with two 8 inch speakers in it I thought I’d died and gone to heaven, actually, that did sound great, if anything it had what everyone thinks is that typical valve sound, in bucket loads, it was "lovely"

[BigRedX]

I had a Dansette for awhile, there’s something about those old machines that just makes things sound "right" somehow you don’t notice you don’t have any bass, or real top end, it doesn’t seem to make any difference, when I got a Philco valve stereogram with two 8 inch speakers in it I thought I’d died and gone to heaven, actually, that did sound great, if anything it had what everyone thinks is that typical valve sound, in bucket loads, it was "lovely"

But mine didn't sound "right". Not by a long shot. It played one side of the stereo image much louder than the other which I only spotted because I had some 60s stereo albums that had the vocals on some tracks panned to the quiet channel. However because most of the time I didn't know any better and hearing how the Dansette played back my records became the mixes I was used to, and when I finally bought a better record player and could properly hear the other channel at the correct volume there were additional instruments that were now audible that IMO didn't always improve the arrangement.

[OneWorld]

"It wasn’t long before I was lusting after a Ferrograph, or even a Brunel"

Ooops, Brennel

Arpy - "when I got a Philco valve stereogram with two 8 inch speakers in it I thought I’d died and gone to heaven"

I'll bet you did, what a great piece of kit, glowing valves and 8" speakers, they would have been big enough to fill the Albert Hall with sound back in the day.

I thought I'd been sent to heaven when I worked in a remote part of a far away land, as a volunteer. I was told that where I was being sent was like paradise, "There's a chickadee behind every tree" I got there, and there was only one tree, and the lass was a lesbian anyway, so much for heaven eh, give me a valved-up double-8 Philco any day.

Actually in truth, when I got to the place, and having spent 3 years there, one of the remotest parts of a developing country, the people were some of the kindest, cleverest, funniest, resourceful and dignified people I have ever known, even though they walked about barefoot with their backside hanging out the back of the rags they called trousers. Taught me so much. And the chickadees? I would have punching above my weight

[SafeandSound Mastering]

As the topic has moved very far from the original topic and touching on the true definition of the word benevolence (and with a valid relationship to music) I thought it was opportune to mention a music release of mine on a label and have assigned my royalty split to a street childrens charity in India.

A charity I have known about since the 90s stumbling on their stall in a flea market there. UK administrated but on the ground in Goa, India.

https://elshaddaisupportuk.org/

I cannot know how much that royalty donation will amount to over time of course but even if it is very little, I have made donations the last few years anyway. Likely to be much more than the royalties.

[Arpangel]

I had a Dansette for awhile, there’s something about those old machines that just makes things sound "right" somehow you don’t notice you don’t have any bass, or real top end, it doesn’t seem to make any difference, when I got a Philco valve stereogram with two 8 inch speakers in it I thought I’d died and gone to heaven, actually, that did sound great, if anything it had what everyone thinks is that typical valve sound, in bucket loads, it was "lovely"

But mine didn't sound "right". Not by a long shot. It played one side of the stereo image much louder than the other which I only spotted because I had some 60s stereo albums that had the vocals on some tracks panned to the quiet channel. However because most of the time I didn't know any better and hearing how the Dansette played back my records became the mixes I was used to, and when I finally bought a better record player and could properly hear the other channel at the correct volume there were additional instruments that were now audible that IMO didn't always improve the arrangement.

A similar thing about things sounding right, why was it you could never hear the surface noise pops and crackles on records on radio music programs?
Everything always sounded great.

[MOF]

why was it you could never hear the surface noise pops and crackles on records on radio music programs?

Because most pop singles don’t have quiet sections perhaps?

[OneWorld]

why was it you could never hear the surface noise pops and crackles on records on radio music programs?

Because most pop singles don’t have quiet sections perhaps?

But radio plays more than just pop music, there's classical too, which has long almost silent passages? I guess it was down to the fact the radio stations really took meticulous care with the media they were playing?

[James Perrett]

A similar thing about things sounding right, why was it you could never hear the surface noise pops and crackles on records on radio music programs?
Everything always sounded great.

They took care of their records - they were never played on a Dansette. I would also assume that the turntables were properly set up with everything in alignment and using the correct tracking weight.

However, if you listened carefully enough on a good system you could still hear the surface noise on certain records.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Professional care and handling of discs was drummed into us all from the moment we walked through the BBC doors! Plus, the turntables, arms and cartridges were properly set up and maintained, and the discs were cleaned in professional cleaners if necessary. Damaged discs were flagged and replaced, too.

Cartridge tracking was also generally on the heavy side, and there was always the option to dial in some top-cut EQ if the crackling or groove distortion became annoying...

But you could definitely hear clicks and crackle on vinyl sources if your radio receiver and hi-fi were good enough.

I was listening to BBC R3 yesterday afternoon and they were playing some archive material that was clearly on digitised from vinyl because there was some audible clicking and crackling (albeit quite low level).

[Albatross]

Another thing that makes vinyl magical is that no two records are ever the same, they all have their own different pops and crackles. My copy of (looking around) Some Girls, is unique.