AllenLowe

shut up Scott; you know nothing about sound or recording. Trust me. I have been doing A/B ing on audiophile speakers for years, have recorded in 16 bit since the 1990s with people like David Baker, at major and minor recording studios, have recorded in 24 bit since about 2007, have used numerous consumer machines, pro machines, analog machines, microphones, multitracks, small tape, large tape; have masted 1,000 projects big and small including my own and have restored thousands of hours of recordings old and new. Jim and I disagree, but we understand the process. though Jim, I will say I have A/B'd on 2 track digital, 16 vs 24 and heard the improvement. It may be for the reasons you say, but in a way that is the point; if 24 bit is not as fussy about levels and dynamic range, that tells me it is a better and more accurate medium. Am I missing something here?

right, but that's my point - you record in 24 bit because bounced down to 16 it sounds way better as the original source. Better than starting at 16 and staying at 16.

Jim, I'm a little bit shocked. Are you saying you don't think 24-bit as the original source recording is better than 16 bit? To me this is not even an arguable point, even when brought down to 16 bit, and if you can't hear that then there are issues with your monitors or something else in the chain. Are you still recording at16 bit? I can hear the difference even in consumer recorders, geez it's not even subtle. As for depth of field, once again, it may not even be a quality issue for most people, but analog audio tape has an obvious depth of field that digital just cannot replicate. It may not matter to most people, but it is there. Though I will say that 2496 comes close.

sorry, Jim, didn't see your follow up; but your critique was so accurate it scared me a little; one of my first recordings, I had the spirit but not quite the technique.

agree with Jim on track 4.

well, if you can't hear it....fine, but you are basically encouraging what is really a desecration of great art; plenty of other sources are around, I have 'em all; just not a good thing to encourage Horwich on this pretty obscene botch. Let me ask you - on that sample of Fat Girl on the Mosaic site, you cannot hear the distortion? Pretty shocking to me if you cannot. I'll try to help you guys out- this from the Mosaic Web site: http://www.mosaicrecords.com/prodinfo.asp?number=260-MD-CD this from YouTube - yes, Youtube - http://www.mosaicrecords.com/prodinfo.asp?number=260-MD-CD in the first, notice the horrible - yes, horrible - weird metallic swoosh of the drums, caused by artifacts of noise reduction - notice how clean and clear the sound is in the second, even compressed for the net - you hear the natural room sound - this did not need this kind of crap processing that Horwich gave it - if you cannot hear that, you have lost too many high frequencies to judge - if you like the brightness on the Mosaic version, it can be EQ'd without the digital distortion in the drums that Horwhich gave us -

from what I have heard of the Mosaic/Dial, 'fuller' maybe, which is not an analog thing but an eq thing that anyone could replicate; the introduction of that horrible extra noise makes it a no-go for me, and Mosaic really should be ashamed for having done this. It's an artifact, likely introduced by whatever "proprietary" technique was used, and it is inexplicable that they didn't just go back and fix it. I can tell you that one very well known sound restorationist actually wrote a letter to Mosaic, he was so appalled. It's doubly horrible because it didn't have to happen. Personally I am holding onto my Spotlight reissues and whatever else I have, legal or not. This music is too important. cripes, just looked at the Savoy; it's Horwich again. Help, unless he has learned his lesson. I cannot get the samples to play, which might be intentional. got it working now, and will tell you that there is a ton of distortion on the trumpet solo on Fat Girl; and the EQ on the samples is a mess. Too much mid and lower mids. please everybody - listen to FAT GIRL from abut 1:35 on - hear the weird gutteral sounds on the trumpet, like someone coughing up plegm? That's noise reduction distortion; I can hear it EVEN on my little built-in MAC speakers. Just awful.

sorry, Jim, but this reflects the kind of casual disrespect that has got me checking this place out less and less. Not your fault, however.

thanks, yes, I wasn't really thinking it through - if you could put it in Offering/Looking for that would be great.

I figured it was MY album of the week......feel free to move this thread to the Charles Manson Forum.

new CD; with Nels Cline, me, Matthew Shipp, Ray Suhy, Larry Feldman, Carolyn Castellano. this is a hot one. $15 shipped USA. My paypal is allenlowe5@gmail.com

no. Geez, look up "irony." Not ironing, irony.

jesus fuckin christ fuck you; what is wrong with this place? Though you did just prove your own point.

Scott, looks like you're feeling more sorry for yourself than anyone else. We're not looking for a handout, just a hand.

what are you, 12 years old? Silly stuff. Joel is entitled to express a little annoyance. Having put on event after event in NYC over the last ten years with virtually no response from the Organissimmo NYC contingent, I identify with his frustration. Joel is an artist, and entitled to a little bit of respect.

I don't think it even matters any more and I am really tired of even having to listen to the question. Do they ask the Southern Poverty Law Center if there is still an audience for truth and justice? Is there an audience for Proust? Is there an audience for healthcare? Is there an audience to help abused women and children? It doesn't matter. I find the whole thing a little insulting, like second class citizenship.

There have been a lot of King reissue programs going back to the early part of the century. The article was fine in general, though that is a weird oversight; and though his writing has a bit too much of that Tosches slickness and exaggeration for my taste. And, I would say that the relationship of the label to rock and roll is way more complex than in his description.

Very significant error in that article, and more than a little shocking. The King catalog has been extensively reissued on multiple labels, both domestic and foreign; which makes me distrust a lot of what else this guy writes.

I AM A WOMAN AGAIN: THE LIFE OF GLADYS BENTLEY A musical suite composed by Allen Lowe, based on the life of a well-known New York City cabaret performer of the 1920s, a cross dresser who was pressured into disavowing her sexuality in the 1950s when she lived in California during the height of the McCarthy era; who was forced into a sham marriage with a man; and who, to salvage her career, wrote an article for Ebony Magazine in 1952 entitled I Am A Woman Again, to explain the error of her ways and announce her nuptials (which lasted only a short time). She returned to New Jersey in the 1960s and entered into an informal marriage with a women, though from there the trail runs cold. She was, however, a great and pioneering singer and piano player whose work survives most prominently in her brilliant 1920s recordings. With: Allen Lowe, alto saxophone, compositions; Kelly Green, piano; Lisa Parrott, baritone saxophone; Nicole Glover, tenor saxophone; Nicole Davis, trumpet; Kevin Ray, bass; Ray Suhy, guitar; Carolyn Castellano, drums At: Scholes Street Studio, Sunday October 16, 2016 7 PM 375 Lorimer St, Brooklyn, NY 11206 ALL TICKETS $10 Call: 207-899-2669 for Information

Kevin - re-read what I said - when the original is an analog and it is transferred to digital, that depth is not lost; it has to do with how the ORIGINAL recording was made. Digital does a nice job of replicating that original if done properly.

I do agree that, at 24 bits, digital has finally found a way to match analog in basic sonic warmth and appeal. my caveat, however, (and it is significant) is that analog has a depth of field which digital is incapable of replicating; you might make the argument that this no longer matters, but there is a depth to the analog sound stage that just does not exist in digital, except when digital is a remaster of an analog original. I get this not so much from Rudy (who was certainly a great engineer) but more from Roy DuNann, who produced what, to my ears, was a more natural sound stage. But I have also heard it from old Revox 77 machines and a number of good analog open reel recorders. Whether or not your ears demand this is another question. but once again, and I think it is for technical reasons, analog has a depth that just does not exist in digital, for better or worse. and by the way this is complete bullshit and technically incorrect: "linear digi­tal has no attributes. It's just a medium for storage. It's what you do with it. A lot of this has to do with the writing in consumer magazines. They've got to talk about some­thing. and a little shocking than any engineer would even think this. If it's all the same and has no attributes than 8 bit digital would equal 16 bit would equal 24 bit; and all converters would sound the same. They don't and they don't. So this completely demolishes that statement. It's not just the engineering because all digital recorders do not give equal sonic performance. They simply don't. Which makes that statement completely erroneous. And it is generally (but not always) the CONVERSION stage (where a signal is changed from analog to digital) that makes digital cold/sterile if if is done poorly, and can also make it sound grainy or distant. I say this, btw, from a lot of experience, in my own studio and having recorded in a lot of studios. the other weird thing about digital recording is the fussiness of it compared to analog; back in the old days when I had a very expensive cassette machine I was able to just place it neutrally in front of a live band and pretty much always get good and balanced sound. With little 2 track digital recorders, this is much more difficult and there is the greater likelihood of distortion and imbalance. I don't know exactly why but it has to be the nature of the medium. And, to add, digital is much fussier about microphones. All in all, if money was no object, I would record on 1 inch analog tape without noise reduction.

I do -

as for schooling; personally I am grateful to jazz because in any other form I would have been sent away years ago; it is the one format that might be considered an art that I can fit into, self-taught and untutored that I am. I always felt that players like Brookmeyer didn't really understand this.

I admire him though it bothers me that, like a lot of the 1950s progressives, he could not accept a lot of the 1960s avant garde. I understand the reasons for this - hell, Johnny Carisi and Lee Konitz were/are the same, among many others - but he could get a little nasty about some of the players and composers who were less schooled than he (Carisi had the same hostility). And I think that's the key - these guys and players were a bit more 'by the book,' meaning they had much more theoretical basis for their work than, say, Hemphill, and they resented unschooled musicians getting greater amounts of - or really any - attention, when they had worked so hard to devise very formal systems. It is unfortunate, and it cuts across styles - hell, I've even heard Knepper talk very cynically about Mingus' very hit-or-miss techniques. And of course Mingus thought the avant gardists were largely phonies and charlatans. And I daresay I myself dealt with a bit of internal static when I worked with guys with formal musical educations who were bothered that I got better reviews than they did.

well, she had that wavery vibrato which has some resemblance to Wiley; she's a very nice lady and I like her blues singing a lot; her jazz less so.