<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Here&#8217;s those EQs and Compressors you asked for.  Now go F&#8217; yrself.	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/</link>
	<description>information and ideas about audio history</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2016 13:55:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Here’s those EQs and Compressors you asked for. Now go F’ yrself. &#124; Preservation Sound &#171; UrMusic Creative Research		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/#comment-375529</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Here’s those EQs and Compressors you asked for. Now go F’ yrself. &#124; Preservation Sound &#171; UrMusic Creative Research]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2016 13:55:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=4011#comment-375529</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Source: Here’s those EQs and Compressors you asked for. Now go F’ yrself. &#124; Preservation Sound [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Source: Here’s those EQs and Compressors you asked for. Now go F’ yrself. | Preservation Sound [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Bob Olhsson		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/#comment-364057</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bob Olhsson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2016 17:42:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=4011#comment-364057</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Back in the world of 3 track recording monitors were selected for their ability to reveal musical problems prior to the musicians leaving the studio. Recording engineers like myself took copies of our recordings home to check out on our hi fi systems. If we&#039;d gotten too carried away with signal processing, we got a very rude awakening! The best argument I know for high fidelity is musical translation between different listening environments. Trusting monitoring too much is a serious trap. The other factor is that while &quot;consumers&quot; may use MP3s, the reviewers and broadcast programming meetings that determine an artist&#039;s exposure are quite likely to use high quality playback.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Back in the world of 3 track recording monitors were selected for their ability to reveal musical problems prior to the musicians leaving the studio. Recording engineers like myself took copies of our recordings home to check out on our hi fi systems. If we&#8217;d gotten too carried away with signal processing, we got a very rude awakening! The best argument I know for high fidelity is musical translation between different listening environments. Trusting monitoring too much is a serious trap. The other factor is that while &#8220;consumers&#8221; may use MP3s, the reviewers and broadcast programming meetings that determine an artist&#8217;s exposure are quite likely to use high quality playback.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jarrod Barker		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/#comment-362748</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jarrod Barker]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2016 20:30:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=4011#comment-362748</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/#comment-13608&quot;&gt;Tom Fine&lt;/a&gt;.

As a drummer/soundmaker/electronic musician/synthist/recordist , &quot;dynamics&quot; in playing and &quot;dynamics&quot; in recording seem at odds...not so the case via Bonzo. Here&#039;s me playing the parts of Bonham and the other tracks on this recording to prove my point and rest my case:  https://soundcloud.com/jarrod-barker-1/heavyballoon-jbarker (by the way, 3 mics on the drums, recorded in my kitchen)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/#comment-13608">Tom Fine</a>.</p>
<p>As a drummer/soundmaker/electronic musician/synthist/recordist , &#8220;dynamics&#8221; in playing and &#8220;dynamics&#8221; in recording seem at odds&#8230;not so the case via Bonzo. Here&#8217;s me playing the parts of Bonham and the other tracks on this recording to prove my point and rest my case:  <a href="https://soundcloud.com/jarrod-barker-1/heavyballoon-jbarker" rel="nofollow ugc">https://soundcloud.com/jarrod-barker-1/heavyballoon-jbarker</a> (by the way, 3 mics on the drums, recorded in my kitchen)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: chris		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/#comment-323174</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chris]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:53:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=4011#comment-323174</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/#comment-323021&quot;&gt;Dwayne&lt;/a&gt;.

hey man -thanks and enjoy - i think there are over 800 articles here,,,,   c.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/#comment-323021">Dwayne</a>.</p>
<p>hey man -thanks and enjoy &#8211; i think there are over 800 articles here,,,,   c.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Dwayne		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/#comment-323021</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dwayne]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2015 06:28:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=4011#comment-323021</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hi Chris, first time I&#039;ve visited the site, and I&#039;m having a great time! ! The above article segues into a Philip Bachman item I recently found regarding Hi-Fidelity, stating that the pursuit of the ultimate&quot; re-creation &quot; of audio performance had looped into creating a hyper- real recordings that bear no resemblance to the source audio, and in fact could not exist outside the studio/ playback realm. And while we all go&quot;well, duh&quot; I think it&#039;s a comment worth remembering, especially as he wrote it circa 1950. It presents a good example of changing paradigms, technology creating self fulfilling possibilities, and a reminder to ask yourself &quot;what is my goal in recording this? &quot;.But besides all that, I love gear porn, whether it be musical instruments, studio or stereo gear, so mucho thanks for the pics and info. Dwayne. 
  ps writing this on my phone, so forgive errors, my eyes not whether they were]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Chris, first time I&#8217;ve visited the site, and I&#8217;m having a great time! ! The above article segues into a Philip Bachman item I recently found regarding Hi-Fidelity, stating that the pursuit of the ultimate&#8221; re-creation &#8221; of audio performance had looped into creating a hyper- real recordings that bear no resemblance to the source audio, and in fact could not exist outside the studio/ playback realm. And while we all go&#8221;well, duh&#8221; I think it&#8217;s a comment worth remembering, especially as he wrote it circa 1950. It presents a good example of changing paradigms, technology creating self fulfilling possibilities, and a reminder to ask yourself &#8220;what is my goal in recording this? &#8220;.But besides all that, I love gear porn, whether it be musical instruments, studio or stereo gear, so mucho thanks for the pics and info. Dwayne.<br />
  ps writing this on my phone, so forgive errors, my eyes not whether they were</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: bafflegab		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/#comment-140436</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[bafflegab]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 04:45:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=4011#comment-140436</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Many people do not understand that the reason that the classic modern pop and rock records are as good as they are is because they used audio modification sparingly (by modern standards) and always they knew when too much was too much. Those engineers knew the rules and they broke them, when they did, at least honoring them in the breach. 

 Now we have people who have no idea of how to do it right or the difference between. 

 The Beatles could play pretty well before anyone ever recorded them, step one. George Martin was a first rate engineer and producer before they crossed paths,  step two. 

 Too many people are trying to run before they can walk today. For one thing, much of the talent out there-and there are big exceptions-either has no biological talent, has no training in any sense, or is simply no where near ready to record except for their own amusement.  For another,  there is a huge lack of patience and a disinclination to &quot;pay dues&quot; amongst both musicians and recordists these days.  But worst of all, the standards people demand of themselves-which is ultimately what determines success-are just about gone. Instead of holding out for good songs played by good musicians and sang by good singers (and no, I am not making myself the arbiter of what&#039;s good-the artists and recordists have to come to that themselves) and recorded in a quality fashion, people want to make a noise NOW!!!! I think a lot of people had that urge all through history, but before the cost of recording tended to act as a filter. Now you can buy, what is even by my own standards, a pretty impressive recording suite for $999 at Guitar Center, and they&#039;ll give you a credit card (never mind GE Consumer Finance&#039;s 29.92% vig) to put it on.  It&#039;s a Swiss Army chainsaw to the average buyer because he&#039;ll be on YouTube in a week and the results will haunt him forever. 

 By the way, Mr. Fine is 100% right about turnmeup.org. I&#039;ve already emailed links to all the screen jockeys at my local crappic rocker and moldies stations.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many people do not understand that the reason that the classic modern pop and rock records are as good as they are is because they used audio modification sparingly (by modern standards) and always they knew when too much was too much. Those engineers knew the rules and they broke them, when they did, at least honoring them in the breach. </p>
<p> Now we have people who have no idea of how to do it right or the difference between. </p>
<p> The Beatles could play pretty well before anyone ever recorded them, step one. George Martin was a first rate engineer and producer before they crossed paths,  step two. </p>
<p> Too many people are trying to run before they can walk today. For one thing, much of the talent out there-and there are big exceptions-either has no biological talent, has no training in any sense, or is simply no where near ready to record except for their own amusement.  For another,  there is a huge lack of patience and a disinclination to &#8220;pay dues&#8221; amongst both musicians and recordists these days.  But worst of all, the standards people demand of themselves-which is ultimately what determines success-are just about gone. Instead of holding out for good songs played by good musicians and sang by good singers (and no, I am not making myself the arbiter of what&#8217;s good-the artists and recordists have to come to that themselves) and recorded in a quality fashion, people want to make a noise NOW!!!! I think a lot of people had that urge all through history, but before the cost of recording tended to act as a filter. Now you can buy, what is even by my own standards, a pretty impressive recording suite for $999 at Guitar Center, and they&#8217;ll give you a credit card (never mind GE Consumer Finance&#8217;s 29.92% vig) to put it on.  It&#8217;s a Swiss Army chainsaw to the average buyer because he&#8217;ll be on YouTube in a week and the results will haunt him forever. </p>
<p> By the way, Mr. Fine is 100% right about turnmeup.org. I&#8217;ve already emailed links to all the screen jockeys at my local crappic rocker and moldies stations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: chris		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/#comment-140366</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chris]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:21:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=4011#comment-140366</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/#comment-140361&quot;&gt;Justin Colletti&lt;/a&gt;.

hi justin, welcome, and i&#039;m excited to check out yr site - you write for tape op?  or similar?  I know i&#039;ve seen yr name around...  c.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/#comment-140361">Justin Colletti</a>.</p>
<p>hi justin, welcome, and i&#8217;m excited to check out yr site &#8211; you write for tape op?  or similar?  I know i&#8217;ve seen yr name around&#8230;  c.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Justin Colletti		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/#comment-140361</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin Colletti]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:42:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=4011#comment-140361</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Great post! I&#039;m digging the whole site. Found it through the Tape Op Messageboard.

As to the chillwave/sampling question -- Sure, sampling is just as valid as any other creative form. The only issue is that when our post-modern re-creations are being released commercially, we should (and must) pay a fee to the original artist.

If it&#039;s not being released commercially, then who really cares? But unfortunately we run into some blurry territory on that question: Is posting an amateur video to YouTube commercial? Doesn&#039;t YouTube sell advertising and collect money on that traffic, whether directly or indirectly? Is cutting the original artist out of that commercial transaction a fair move?

Sampling culture is great. When commercially-released, sampled works have just gotta pay the original creators a fair little slice of revenue. No big deal. We&#039;ve been doing that for decades without issue. 

And when they&#039;re not commercial? Well -- clearly we need more and better *non*-commercial outlets for amateur re-mixers who have no commercial intent. Because there are precious few options on that front. 

There is nothing non-commercial about say, YouTube. Google is one of the biggest and most financially successful corporations on the planet! The same kind of argument could be made around ad-supported file sharing networks, Facebook... the list goes on. 

It&#039;s an issue I&#039;ve been thinking about a lot, and have explored a bit here:

http://trustmeimascientist.com/2013/03/04/in-defense-of-the-amateur/

Anyway, thanks for the great site, and keep on doing what you do.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post! I&#8217;m digging the whole site. Found it through the Tape Op Messageboard.</p>
<p>As to the chillwave/sampling question &#8212; Sure, sampling is just as valid as any other creative form. The only issue is that when our post-modern re-creations are being released commercially, we should (and must) pay a fee to the original artist.</p>
<p>If it&#8217;s not being released commercially, then who really cares? But unfortunately we run into some blurry territory on that question: Is posting an amateur video to YouTube commercial? Doesn&#8217;t YouTube sell advertising and collect money on that traffic, whether directly or indirectly? Is cutting the original artist out of that commercial transaction a fair move?</p>
<p>Sampling culture is great. When commercially-released, sampled works have just gotta pay the original creators a fair little slice of revenue. No big deal. We&#8217;ve been doing that for decades without issue. </p>
<p>And when they&#8217;re not commercial? Well &#8212; clearly we need more and better *non*-commercial outlets for amateur re-mixers who have no commercial intent. Because there are precious few options on that front. </p>
<p>There is nothing non-commercial about say, YouTube. Google is one of the biggest and most financially successful corporations on the planet! The same kind of argument could be made around ad-supported file sharing networks, Facebook&#8230; the list goes on. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s an issue I&#8217;ve been thinking about a lot, and have explored a bit here:</p>
<p><a href="http://trustmeimascientist.com/2013/03/04/in-defense-of-the-amateur/" rel="nofollow ugc">http://trustmeimascientist.com/2013/03/04/in-defense-of-the-amateur/</a></p>
<p>Anyway, thanks for the great site, and keep on doing what you do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Spring 2012 &#124; Preservation Sound		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/#comment-17388</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Spring 2012 &#124; Preservation Sound]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:05:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=4011#comment-17388</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] and everyone was into sample-based tracks.  That trend in music subsided a long time ago (only to creep back, in indie rock this time around); but since I&#8217;ve gotten heavily involved in creating library music with some great [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] and everyone was into sample-based tracks.  That trend in music subsided a long time ago (only to creep back, in indie rock this time around); but since I&#8217;ve gotten heavily involved in creating library music with some great [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: nat		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/heres-those-eqs-and-compressors-you-asked-for-now-go-f-yrself/#comment-14093</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nat]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:05:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=4011#comment-14093</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[this post is an instant classic.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this post is an instant classic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
