Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Ask The Tapers => Topic started by: boojum on March 26, 2007, 11:38:07 AM
-
Hi - A board I sometimes post torrents to of legally recorded local bands has a "no tempering" policy. What this means is that you cannot in any way change the sound of what you have recorded. Now reading the DPA company's manuals and papers reveals that DPA considers it neccessary to adjust cardioid mic sounds to account for a bass deficiency. And sometimes I record in a room where the sound is way too bright and could you some attenuation.
So, I was wondering what you folks think about this. Please let me know. I sure do not see anything wrong in post-processing adjustment. I would not use compression.
Thanks.
-
I think processing in post (including compression) can help many recordings. I think a lot of people don't know how to do it well (especially EQ), and the final results often sound worse than the original. I think if you want to edit your recordings and still seed them, you should find another board with less restrictive policies.
-
I agree with BS ^^
If your talking about your own recordings... What would stop you from doing whatever the hell you want to and just not noting it on the text file? I never take the time to note anything that was done in post on my recordings.
-
Personally, I can't see the harm in processing your audio - say to remove a particularly loud scream, or to try and make up for a really bad room sound, or whatever - if it makes the recording sound better then by definition it also makes the band/artist you've recorded sound better, no?
-
Personally, I can't see the harm in processing your audio - say to remove a particularly loud scream, or to try and make up for a really bad room sound, or whatever - if it makes the recording sound better then by definition it also makes the band/artist you've recorded sound better, no?
Well, I agree with you all. I have recorded stuff in rooms which are very bright and cause the recording to be a bit shrill. And with a cardioid it will be weak on the bass end, especially my ECM-MS957. I was relieved to learn DPA considers post-processing correction for cards neccessary. But I am so new to this I am really unsure about what is "acceptable behavior." For my own use I have no problem with tweaking to correct for venue problems. I was just kind if unsure about stuff I posted after the comments I got on one board about this. I feel quite a bit better. ;o)
-
What board is this that you're talking about? While I don't necessarily agree with such a strict policy, I'm somewhat intrigued by one that takes such a purist view to the recordings it accepts...
-
I'd rather not let the personalities get involved in this. I am not trying to point a finger. I am just trying to gt a consensus. 8)
-
He actually posted this same question at the ETREE Forums. The concensus over there is that you should try and circulate the unadultered files since "remastering" may not actually be a good thing (see any one of the tapers vs. remaster arguements on BT.ETREE, or the recent MarMar incident that got him to pull all his PH torrents).
But ETREE also take into consideration that it happens, and we ask that you make note of it in your lineage.
ETREE isn't going to ban a torrent because is has some bass-roll off applied, etc. It would just be nice to know, for the purist, how the recording was edited post-show.
Terry
-
IMHO, if it's your source, do whatever you want with it. :)
-
Well, true, it is mine. I also have to swim in the same stream as a lot of other fish, so it might be a good idea to see what direction they are swimming. I think what would seem best is to post the unadulterated files to the board I post to and tweak another set for the band if they want one and to get the practice of cleaing up bad venues. Or, I could post both and let the downloaders decide. Looks like time to install that 400 GB HD in place of the 250. I am sure happy the prices are down.
Thanks all for your exchange of ideas on this. I am just learning and want to avoid the mistakes others have made as much as I can.
Cheers 8)
-
The concensus over there is that you should try and circulate the unadultered files since "remastering" may not actually be a good thing (see any one of the tapers vs. remaster arguements on BT.ETREE, or the recent MarMar incident that got him to pull all his PH torrents).
Screw the purists, if they want a pure source hand them an SM-57 and a Sony cassette deck and send them on their way to tape to their hearts content. Fact is; as a taper, we chose the damn equipment, picked the location, rolled the tape (or harddisc), usually enjoied the show less than others, and damnit if I want to apply compression, de-essing, mojo, pixie dust to a recording I'm gonna do it. There are too many variables for any purist to think they can limit anything. Next someone will tell me I can seed my tape because my cables weren't elevated on ceramic insulators and that the venue carpet acted as a dielectric and spoiled my source, ummmm....no.
I do whatever I think sounds good, if someone else doesn't like it they can just be thankful that the majority of the western world doesn't pay per GB for downloads.
peace, chris
-
PVM480 duh they'll put some bass off up in ANY place
run them at center of horn height and just to the inside of the stax(no matter where you are at a rawk sho)for FAT onstage and good samples of what ever the fronts/bottoms can get ya that the stage don't kill...and gainiacs notwithstanding you will have a hyper accurate representation with no alteration...and if:
(ethics get around) run them hot but not over at all and use a compressor/limiter/leveler
DURING capture...and STRICTLY enforce that policy and then let us know how it works out for ya
(policy change)ANY shitty auds or sbds already suck already anyway why give them what you don't even want??you are there to help THEM so show them that and then point out that:
anything that YOU don't like the sound of to YOU is why eqs are in everybodys players already anyways so there's your already built in POST of none of your processing at all xtra gain stage so everybody that wants to even hear any of their stuff can make it their own version already anyways before they post process it themselves when YOU GIVE AWAY FREE STUFF FOR NOBODY TO PROFIT FROM BUT THE POLICY HOLDER duh
shupa cods are the only cods to own mics notwithstanding duh
Hi - A board I sometimes post torrents to of legally recorded local bands has a "no tempering" policy. What this means is that you cannot in any way change the sound of what you have recorded. Now reading the DPA company's manuals and papers reveals that DPA considers it neccessary to adjust cardioid mic sounds to account for a bass deficiency. And sometimes I record in a room where the sound is way too bright and could you some attenuation.
So, I was wondering what you folks think about this. Please let me know. I sure do not see anything wrong in post-processing adjustment. I would not use compression.
Thanks.
-
Screw the purists, if they want a pure source hand them an SM-57 and a Sony cassette deck and send them on their way to tape to their hearts content. Fact is; as a taper, we chose the damn equipment, picked the location, rolled the tape (or harddisc), usually enjoied the show less than others, and damnit if I want to apply compression, de-essing, mojo, pixie dust to a recording I'm gonna do it.
Agree 101% :)
With multitrack devices becoming more popular, it becomes a whole lot easier to "fix" things since you can now have control over compression and eq on a certain type of mic. Just because you didn't touch it with come type of compression or EQ doesn't mean it's going to sound better, the equipment has a lot to do with the final sound and honestly I don't think most people can tell what I'm doing in my recordings, because it's the final product they end up with that they are listening to. It's not my multitrack files which haven't been processed yet, and honestly just changing the mix a bit by bringing up a certain type of mics a few dB in the mix will change the sound of the show without any eq or compression. So, what say the purist there? I don't know, but I do think they are living in a very unrealistic world. And as people move to multitrack this is going to be a much bigger issue. I can guarantee you that I'm never giving anybody my multi-track files (unless they've paid me to do so -- paid job).
But I'm totally with Chris on this one. Let them record their own "unaltered" recordings if they want. I see it as our job to produce the best sounding recording. That usually requires some type of altering of what was captured.
Wayne
-
The concensus over there is that you should try and circulate the unadultered files since "remastering" may not actually be a good thing
I know this is more semantics/nitpicking...but wouldn't "remastering" be what someone does to a recording once it's been released? What we do in post, wouldn't that be called mastering (or something)?
-
We are obviously biased here since most of know how to use music software to varying degrees. I think we are educated enough to be able to do any "mastering" (thanks Macroint) with good results. Unfortunately, most ETREE users aren't as smart as we be...
The concensus at ETREE to avoid trading "remasters" is the same we have here - we don't want to see crappy remasters of shows. We would rather see one unadulterated source that gets tweaked for your own archives.
Anybody that has been keeping up with the disaster that is the GD DB.ETREE knows how much of a PITA it is when everybody and their brother decides to tweak a show and release it. ETREE cannot restrict the trading of those files, but we can suggest to people that they do not trade these tweaks and just trade the original files.
But then you look at the MarMar seeds. It was "mastered", then "Remastered" which caused an uproar over at ETREE. MarMar (stupidly) pulled all his torrents from BT.
I'm also not sure how many threads this past month I've fielded because people are complaining about a simple SHN>FLAC conversion is "pollution".
I think there is more to this than meets the eyes, and depending on who you ask (and how you ask), you will get a different response. But like I said before, do what you like, they are your tapes.
Terry
-
I have a question of boojum: what is the reasoning given at those "no-tampering" sites???
Terry
-
TW - Well, I get answers that differ, about the same as here. One is they are mine to do with as I wish. I record only bands who allow it. And would only modify the tracks to correct for room or mic failings. The other group says the original should never be touched. I believed the "original should never be touched" stuff until I read DPA on cardioids: they need to be corrected to compensate for poor bass performance. If DPA thinks this I would want to be very sure of myself before I would outright say they are wrong. And the cardioid I have (ECM-MS957) has a poor bottom which is easily corrected with Audacity. Not to make booming bass, but to make bass which can be heard just like in real life. If there is an upright bass there, I want to be able to hear it in the recording just as I heard it in the performance. Mics are not perfect. Yes, I know my audio memory is not either.
Now at the venue the mind will compensate for a lot of audio flaws. But the mic does not and has deficiencies and they all show up on the recording. So, I think I should just tweak them a bit. I like to keep it simple so I would be surprised if anyone would know the file had been tweaked if they were not told. Yeah, yeah, I am sure every mixer junkie says the same thing; but I am different! LOL
Comments??
-
I am at the opposite end of the spectrum. The TLM-170s pick up every bit of bass, both direct and reverberant. I have taken to running them with the bass rolloff at the shows for starters. Before that, if I did not use a high pass filter in post, the recordings were virtually unlistenable. Once the HPF was applied, which then brought the gain of the high frequencies into alignment, the recordings sounded great.
I agree with the prior post, if those people don't like what we post, let them tape themselves. Otherwise, I strive to put out the best recordings possible, have invested a whole lot of money and time doing it, spend hours afterward trying to ensure the recording sounds its best, and post it for others, and if some pickyass mother f%&8er wants to criticize that effort, then don't download my source.
-
fwiw, i dont perform any alterations whatsoever, including fades. but then again, I havent taped in too many wretched conditions as of late..
-
The concensus over there is that you should try and circulate the unadultered files since "remastering" may not actually be a good thing (see any one of the tapers vs. remaster arguements on BT.ETREE, or the recent MarMar incident that got him to pull all his PH torrents).
Screw the purists, if they want a pure source hand them an SM-57 and a Sony cassette deck and send them on their way to tape to their hearts content. Fact is; as a taper, we chose the damn equipment, picked the location, rolled the tape (or harddisc), usually enjoied the show less than others, and damnit if I want to apply compression, de-essing, mojo, pixie dust to a recording I'm gonna do it. There are too many variables for any purist to think they can limit anything. Next someone will tell me I can seed my tape because my cables weren't elevated on ceramic insulators and that the venue carpet acted as a dielectric and spoiled my source, ummmm....no.
I do whatever I think sounds good, if someone else doesn't like it they can just be thankful that the majority of the western world doesn't pay per GB for downloads.
peace, chris
t's for the next few days
-
did y'all know?
comp/lim/lvlng and preamps predate any software
punch cards even.
because i already know how to power a vacuum tube with dc anyways
m-kay?
do you?
m-kay
mr slave what do they care about pv anyways?
who here keeps an un-sensored MASTER RECORDING of their stuff in as large a format real-estate wise that they can keep because it belongs to them and can't fit into any juke i ever got my ass drug into or drug my own ass into even if all they could play that on if i recorded in there may be an 8 track maybe...maybe...i do OWN a juke box that does play 78s and some play 45s too.
you should see my juke(not box it plays 45s too and i don't want it to werk...right now) sometime.
m-kay?
now mr slave can we move R U 1 ? back yet?
fades suck m-kay
who here knows anything about the stages of gain and how to use anything?
who knows this:
what is a master volume to you?
where is the new yokle you yokel?
-
When I first started taping, I tended to tweak every recording - I figured those EQ plug-ins were there to be used and the tapes sounded an awful lot better with a bit of a bass cut/treble boost, so why not?
Later (as I got better mics, probably), I stopped doing anything other than normalizing and fading - I wouldn't say I was a 'purist' but I was certainly taking into account my limited equipment and questionable skills. And the fact that if my masters ever go up in smoke, I'd like to have some decent copies of them in circulation so improved equipment and skills might one day do a better job.
But I was listening to BBC radio one night -and the BBC have, arguably, one of the best live music archives in the world- and heard Steve Lamacq say "there'll be a short delay before we bring you tonight's live set from ??????, the engineer is just applying a bit of EQ". Cue lightbulb above head - for all the expensive mics with proper placement, soundboard feeds etc etc that one would have in an ideal situation, the aim is to produce something that is pleasant to listen to. And for me that means that if a bit of EQ is needed, then have at it.
That said, I can understand policies such as the one you mention at this unnamed board - it seems that many people (and by this I refer mainly to the Dime leechers who can motivate themselves sufficiently to post comments on torrents) think that a "great recording" = zero bass and a treble boost that introduces appreciable amounts of hiss.
But I think the taper does have the prerogative to alter his recordings as he sees fit, even if the board doesn't permit other people to re-post "remastered" (what a hateful word in this context) versions of other people's stuff.
-
Yousef - Well reasoned; well said. I am pretty much of the same opinion. That's why I think you're so damned smart. LOL Many, many professional recordings sound better because they have been tweaked some. Live feeds also, as you have pointed out. Aunty Beeb knows recording. I do not like the current "hot" technique with a mic right on top of each instrument and then mixed with pan-potting to place them in the stereo field. They sound to hot and have little or no ambience. I guess most of us deal with ambience as we tape at the venue almost always and not in a studio. And we generally use just the two mics. But I record in sleazy saloons with awful acoustics and sound systems placed in weird fashions and so on. They do need some fixin' to sound right.
Now the difficult part is to apply the "fixin'" with a judicious hand. Publishing in the recording chain what the mods are and making them with Audacity will allow any and all who wish to remove the mixing board adjustments the info they need.
-
Aunty Beeb knows recording. I do not like the current "hot" technique with a mic right on top of each instrument and then mixed with pan-potting to place them in the stereo field. They sound to hot and have little or no ambience.
Interesting... You've made me realize that I haven't recorded any 'new' Beeb live broadcasts for a good few years now. I've grabbed a few sessions and keep my eye out for archival stuff but nothing new for quite a while. Must be getting old. :-\
-
maybe ask them @ the website if they have a policy on what kind of mic configuration you have to use.
hypers or no?
are you allowed to apply a -10db pad?
you are the author of that recording. it's all up to you. however from a taper-ethics p.o.v. you should say what you've done to it.
-
db - that is where I am at: make minimal mods to correct for venue or mic deficiencies and note them in the recordng chain info included in the upload. So long as I do it in Audacity anyone can undo them. That seems the best. No tricky whiz-bang boxes, no snake oil machines, no smoke or mirrors, just the mixer board included in Audacity. 8)
-
Well personally I think if you are the engineer no one should tell you how to do your job. You should be open to critic, and opinions, but never should you be told how to do your job.
Granted any monkey can stand over a bag and make shure thier levels dont go over a certain point.. But most monkeys cant figure out why a certain mic config is good for certain situations and most monkeys cant tell you how to connect the gear or even consider the different options you go through when buying gear... So I say, let the monkey call themselves purists.. They are still listening to digital media and you cant listen to digital media and call yourself and purist.. 2:1 compression ratio might be lossless but any purist wouldnt have anything to do with file compression.
Overall if you want to have controll over what is done to a recording after the show and before it hits the masses, buy yourself a rig and learn how to use it and the software involved in getting it up and out to the masses..
-
I recently discovered compressor, limiter and EQ plugins and have been playing around with them quite a bit. I love it, it improves the sound of my recordings so much its incredible. You can really add juce to your sound with this software. I do not feel limited by my rig anymore which is great since I have hit a wall gear wise. For stealthing your options are just very limited.
I can understand the "no alterations" approach, it makes sense in a way. But in the end of the day I ask myself: Why do I tape? Why did I start? And what was I thinking when I was "on the other end", read a fan of a band going to a concert hoping for a recording?
I want as many people (or fans) to listen to my recordings (if they are good) as possible because it will make them happy to have a memory of this show available. I was always so grateful if I could snag a recording of a show I attended. And the most imprtant thing: Make it a pleasent listening experience, make it loud enough to play well on a bad to medium system, make it listenable on a portable system. To archive that you almost have to use post processing.
Not to mention its fun to experiment with audio software :) And fun is why we are here, right?
And recently I even allowed mp3 versions of my shows. Its the ultimate sin I know, but honestly, people will spread it in mp3 anyway and if thats what they want to use then they should go ahead and use it. Who am I to "forbid" it? If they want a better version they know where to get it.
Allright this turned into a bit of a ramble...
-
I guess it comes down to why you like to tape live shows, or maybe more significantly, why you like to share them on ETree. If you're sharing on ETree to share the most enjoyable version of a live show from an artist you like, then bring on the whole paintbox of possibility. If you're sharing to compare technical field recording skill, then by all means keep it sparse. As long as you're clear what you did, the purists don't have to download your stuff.
My gear is mid-low (although getting better), and I usually tape friends' bands and small bands playing in mid-small venues (approx. 400-800 capacity). Now I don't know why, but it seems most of those venues sound like your mics are at the bottom of a tub of Creamed Wheat - heavy, thudding bass, muddy mids, and highs that are too dependent on mic placement. Given those factors (bad gear and bad venues), I'm pretty reliant on post- to get my recordings to come out well, although I try to limit it to some EQ and a little compression. Of course, when I share my recordings with the artists themselves, THEY are happy I did a lot of post work. They're just looking for a good sound, not some abstract idea of purity. If the venue sounds like crud because the sound guy overamped the lows to give the crowd a pulsing dance feel, that's not what the artisits want to hear - they want to hear a clean recording.
Personally, I record for me and my friends. I'm not interested in some junk-measuring contest where an elitist snob with 5x the $$ worth of gear I have is crying foul because my recording sounds better than his due to me doing some modification to the sound in post.
Ever look at a soundboard? Plenty of EQ options there - any band has to be "tuned" to the venue and some sound guys do better than others. I'm never going to compromse my enjoyment of a tape because the sound guy's idea of "good sound" is radically different than mine.
I guess I won't be posting to ETree any time soon, if that's their policy. And are you seriously suggesting the majority of people who download from ETree want an archival pure copy of the feed because they have a copy of Audacity or Soundforge and want to apply their custom post-editing? I may just suck at it, but it takes me a couple hours of experimentation between different compressors, EQ settings, etc. before I find what I think works best. I for one prefer not having to muck about with anything I download from ETree - I only invest that time and effort into my own creations.
Just one man's opinion, I may be wrong...
ps. I've never actually put my mics in a tub of Creamed Wheat...<grin>
pps. If you can use VST plugins, check out Digitalfishphone's Endorphin compressor - great for cleaning up muddy venues, and it's free! http://www.digitalfishphones.com/main.php?item=2&subItem=3
-
I guess I won't be posting to ETree any time soon, if that's their policy.
ETREE doesn't forbid post-processed shows. The only things banned by ETREE are lossy files.
Terry
-
I may just suck at it, but it takes me a couple hours of experimentation between different compressors, EQ settings, etc. before I find what I think works best.
The biggest issue I have here is just make sure you have a system that lets you really hear what it is you are altering. Performing EQ, compression, limiting, etc. on a file that you are monitoring through a cheap set of headphones or computer speakers will sound drastically different on a different system.
My opinion is you can (and should) do some EQ, but do it lightly and do it on a system that lets you really hear what it is you are doing. Otherwise you might find that you're great sounding show now sounds very poor on another system.
Wayne
-
I may just suck at it, but it takes me a couple hours of experimentation between different compressors, EQ settings, etc. before I find what I think works best.
The biggest issue I have here is just make sure you have a system that lets you really hear what it is you are altering. Performing EQ, compression, limiting, etc. on a file that you are monitoring through a cheap set of headphones or computer speakers will sound drastically different on a different system.
My opinion is you can (and should) do some EQ, but do it lightly and do it on a system that lets you really hear what it is you are doing. Otherwise you might find that you're great sounding show now sounds very poor on another system.
Wayne
Nothing against you Sharky, I'm sure you know what you are doing.
But Wayne makes a good point. Early on, I rolled the bass-off on a recording based on what I heard through my playback system (JVC and Pioneer speakers). I thought it sounded great. Later, when I updated my playback (Sony ES and Paradigm), the very same rolled-off recording sounded very thin - no bass. I went back to my master and redid the show. Now it sounds like its supposed to sound.
This is one of those issues that isn't going to have a clear-cut answer, I suppose. Someone like Charlie Miller certainly knows what he's doing post-process, so there is no issue having him re-do seeds. But some newbie with a brand new LogiTech computer PC speaker system and the latest version of Audacity might not produce favorable results.
As parts of the "no peeing in the pool" ideal at ETREE, we generally try to discourage people from tinkering with recordings because most ETREE users do NOT know what they are doing. I really don't want to have to wade through 50 poorly processed seeds of the same show before finding the good one.
Kind of the same idea when we talk about people 're-mastering' a tapers seeds. There have been several discussion about tapers releasing seeds only to find their seeds "remastered" by whomever. This has caused controversy as some tapers feel others shouldn't change their seeds without their consent.
ETREE can't stop you from doing whatever you want with your seeds. They are your seeds and it is your archive, so do with it as you want. The only thing ETREE can do is regulate the trading of non-friendly acts on its Forums and remove lossy/non-friendly seeds from the BT.ETREE. At least thats all we are going to do.
If you want to post-process your recording, go for it. Personally, I would rather you didn't for my own sake, but like I've said already - they are your seeds, do with them what you want.
Terry
-
Early on, I rolled the bass-off on a recording based on what I heard through my playback system (JVC and Pioneer speakers). I thought it sounded great. Later, when I updated my playback (Sony ES and Paradigm), the very same rolled-off recording sounded very thin - no bass. I went back to my master and redid the show. Now it sounds like its supposed to sound.
When my brother's band recorded some tracks in a "real" studio many years ago I joined them for the session and learned a lot.
One thing I found pretty interesting was in the control room they had a few sets of monitors. One were a really nice set of something high end (I forget what), another were Pioneer 5x9 car speakers, and the other were a set of detachable boombox speakers you might get from K-Mart (this was the 80's, today it would be iPod speakers from WalMart ;)).
I don't know if this still hold true, but the aim at the time was to tweak the eq, compression and whatever else to find a happy medium that sounded acceptable on all the speakers. If they made the recording so it sounded great on the high end gear, it would distort horribly on the crappy gear. So they had to remove fidelity to make it compatible with what people were likely to be listening on. It really opened my eyes at the time.
-
I may just suck at it, but it takes me a couple hours of experimentation between different compressors, EQ settings, etc. before I find what I think works best.
The biggest issue I have here is just make sure you have a system that lets you really hear what it is you are altering. Performing EQ, compression, limiting, etc. on a file that you are monitoring through a cheap set of headphones or computer speakers will sound drastically different on a different system.
My opinion is you can (and should) do some EQ, but do it lightly and do it on a system that lets you really hear what it is you are doing. Otherwise you might find that you're great sounding show now sounds very poor on another system.
Wayne
Nothing against you Sharky, I'm sure you know what you are doing.
But Wayne makes a good point. Early on, I rolled the bass-off on a recording based on what I heard through my playback system (JVC and Pioneer speakers). I thought it sounded great. Later, when I updated my playback (Sony ES and Paradigm), the very same rolled-off recording sounded very thin - no bass. I went back to my master and redid the show. Now it sounds like its supposed to sound.
This is one of those issues that isn't going to have a clear-cut answer, I suppose. Someone like Charlie Miller certainly knows what he's doing post-process, so there is no issue having him re-do seeds. But some newbie with a brand new LogiTech computer PC speaker system and the latest version of Audacity might not produce favorable results.
As parts of the "no peeing in the pool" ideal at ETREE, we generally try to discourage people from tinkering with recordings because most ETREE users do NOT know what they are doing. I really don't want to have to wade through 50 poorly processed seeds of the same show before finding the good one.
Kind of the same idea when we talk about people 're-mastering' a tapers seeds. There have been several discussion about tapers releasing seeds only to find their seeds "remastered" by whomever. This has caused controversy as some tapers feel others shouldn't change their seeds without their consent.
ETREE can't stop you from doing whatever you want with your seeds. They are your seeds and it is your archive, so do with it as you want. The only thing ETREE can do is regulate the trading of non-friendly acts on its Forums and remove lossy/non-friendly seeds from the BT.ETREE. At least thats all we are going to do.
If you want to post-process your recording, go for it. Personally, I would rather you didn't for my own sake, but like I've said already - they are your seeds, do with them what you want.
Terry
Heh, there's no way I know what I'm doing, Terry, but I thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt!!
And I think you make a great point about "peeing in the pool." I'm especially in agreement with you concerning re-masters: Etree is there for people to share tapes that they made, not some mixmaster's resampled and remixed version of the original tracks. I'm just speaking for the original poster, that they should have license to upload a recording they have made with any post-production they feel is warranted.
My post- skills are very much a work in progress, and I'm limited in what I can reasonably justify to spend. I understand your and Wayne's point about sound quality, and appreciate the nuances, particularly when it comes to EQ. I can't afford a crazy set of high end cans or a true pro soundboard, but so far my Sennheisers, Soundforge 8 and SB X-Fi Platinum (I know, I know, ASIO issues and that damn crackling) let me create stuff that actually sounds better once I try it on my CD player, in my car, and on my Sansa portable/WAV player as compared to my computer. And I don't really know why. Of course, I still find myself double-checking back to the raw source (which I always keep somewhere) and more often than not find I prefer it to the mucked up version I've just created and have to start from scratch. As I said, though, I may just suck at it <grin>...
Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate it!
Mike