@ A Word in Your Ear
please snd me an email by clicking on the "contact us" link in the right upper corner of this page. I think we should team up and contact the seller. Maybe we can come to a friendly solution.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]eddieshore wrote: [/QUOTENAME]barry mitchell was just some idiot that played bass in queen before queen was really "queen."
barry mitchell is a nobody as far as im concerned.
[/QUOTE]
you kiss your mother with that mouth?
What a cocky little "Alan MP" you are.
You might want to learn a little respect. No human being is allowed that kind of attack.
barry mitchell is a nobody as far as im concerned.
[/QUOTE]
you kiss your mother with that mouth?
What a cocky little "Alan MP" you are.
You might want to learn a little respect. No human being is allowed that kind of attack.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]eddieshore wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
nobody here has ever met him.
[/QUOTE]
Read my reply in other thread about this case!
(P.S. by John about Barry: "I have personally got to know Barry Mitchell over the last few years")
nobody here has ever met him.
[/QUOTE]
Read my reply in other thread about this case!
(P.S. by John about Barry: "I have personally got to know Barry Mitchell over the last few years")
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]eddieshore wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
nobody here has ever met him.
[/QUOTE]
Read my reply in other thread about this case!
(P.S. by John about Barry: "I have personally got to know Barry Mitchell over the last few years")[/QUOTE]
We might as well ignore this total n00b eddieshore. He's a total idiot. He's probably not even worth replying to.
nobody here has ever met him.
[/QUOTE]
Read my reply in other thread about this case!
(P.S. by John about Barry: "I have personally got to know Barry Mitchell over the last few years")[/QUOTE]
We might as well ignore this total n00b eddieshore. He's a total idiot. He's probably not even worth replying to.
I already mailed Barry about this. Still, I don't give an opinion, unless he will not mail me back. I still don't believe that this was a fake Barry Mitchell.
He said he also worked with Alan Parsons (yes, the one of Alan Parsons Project). He said he had also some recordings of that too.
He said he also worked with Alan Parsons (yes, the one of Alan Parsons Project). He said he had also some recordings of that too.
If you got a show and want to find out if it's mp3 sourced or not, all you can do is to run a frequency analysis, because naturally it's impossible to find out only from listening to the show if you can't compare it to a true lossless copy.
News to me. I'm wondering if you understand the principle behind mp3s; could you tell me what you look for in an analysis to determine the source?
News to me. I'm wondering if you understand the principle behind mp3s; could you tell me what you look for in an analysis to determine the source?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]stark wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
News to me. I'm wondering if you understand the principle behind mp3s; could you tell me what you look for in an analysis to determine the source? [/QUOTE]
Mp3 encoding cuts out all the high and low frequencies of the music in order to make the file smaller. After the mp3 encoding you are left with an approximation of the original file/recording. It sounds similar(more or less depending on the codec and bit rates), but as mentioned it's just an approximation of what the original recording sounded like.
This result of an mp3 encoding, i.e. the lack of higher frequencies(usually from about 16khz onwards) can be clearly seen when you run a frequency analysis. A lossless file has a continouus spectral line from 0 to 44khz without any drops or cuts in between, a lossy file doesn't have a continouus spectral line, but usually shows a drop of frequencies above 16khz, because these frequencies are now missing as they've been thrown out in the lossy encoding.
Here is an example:
http://www.geocities.com/tilomagnet/lossless_FA.JPG
http://www.geocities.com/tilomagnet/lossy_FA.JPG
Both are audience recordings from the '70ies, sound is similar.
News to me. I'm wondering if you understand the principle behind mp3s; could you tell me what you look for in an analysis to determine the source? [/QUOTE]
Mp3 encoding cuts out all the high and low frequencies of the music in order to make the file smaller. After the mp3 encoding you are left with an approximation of the original file/recording. It sounds similar(more or less depending on the codec and bit rates), but as mentioned it's just an approximation of what the original recording sounded like.
This result of an mp3 encoding, i.e. the lack of higher frequencies(usually from about 16khz onwards) can be clearly seen when you run a frequency analysis. A lossless file has a continouus spectral line from 0 to 44khz without any drops or cuts in between, a lossy file doesn't have a continouus spectral line, but usually shows a drop of frequencies above 16khz, because these frequencies are now missing as they've been thrown out in the lossy encoding.
Here is an example:
http://www.geocities.com/tilomagnet/lossless_FA.JPG
http://www.geocities.com/tilomagnet/lossy_FA.JPG
Both are audience recordings from the '70ies, sound is similar.
I will not pass judgement on Barry nor on anyone else, as that is not my intention, but I have analysed the recording contained in the CD provided via eBay and I have some 'unfortunate' conclusions:
1) The track is mono, has some hiss and also heavy 'warm' saturation (generally in the bass range). This is what is expected from an open reel tape recording of the late '60s/early '70s.
2) There is no sonic indication that it comes from the audience. The audience/ambience sound is minimal with no near shouts/claps/etc. nor structural echoes. In conclusion, this is pretty much a 'dry' mix so I find it quite impossible to be recorded from the audience.
3) The sound changes equalization at 2:55 (a heavy cut in the high frequencies). It could be explained by a change on the position of the microphone but there are no associated microphone noises. In fact there are no microphone artifacts whatsoever in the whole track.
4) The recording has an exponential decay on frequencies over 16 kHz. And just before anyone asks: the tape itself will NEVER produce that spectral response - no matter how aged and/or damaged it is. I am not saying that this do not come from a tape, just that it is pretty obvious that SOMETHING happened to the sound. Anyway, the position of the decay curve is typical from a 320 kbps mp3. I might post a comparison later.
5) The track is definetely from the 1973.09.13 Golders Green Hippodrome broadcasting, just a little slower. Not only the music and comments are the very same, but also the audience response and the ambience noise are exact matches aswell. A very good example are Brian's mumble and 'accidental' chord at about 4:07.
All that is unquestionable evidence that the track on the CD has nothing to do with the 1971 recording as in the story we have heard so many times. I have no explanation for all this. I am as shocked as some of you.
1) The track is mono, has some hiss and also heavy 'warm' saturation (generally in the bass range). This is what is expected from an open reel tape recording of the late '60s/early '70s.
2) There is no sonic indication that it comes from the audience. The audience/ambience sound is minimal with no near shouts/claps/etc. nor structural echoes. In conclusion, this is pretty much a 'dry' mix so I find it quite impossible to be recorded from the audience.
3) The sound changes equalization at 2:55 (a heavy cut in the high frequencies). It could be explained by a change on the position of the microphone but there are no associated microphone noises. In fact there are no microphone artifacts whatsoever in the whole track.
4) The recording has an exponential decay on frequencies over 16 kHz. And just before anyone asks: the tape itself will NEVER produce that spectral response - no matter how aged and/or damaged it is. I am not saying that this do not come from a tape, just that it is pretty obvious that SOMETHING happened to the sound. Anyway, the position of the decay curve is typical from a 320 kbps mp3. I might post a comparison later.
5) The track is definetely from the 1973.09.13 Golders Green Hippodrome broadcasting, just a little slower. Not only the music and comments are the very same, but also the audience response and the ambience noise are exact matches aswell. A very good example are Brian's mumble and 'accidental' chord at about 4:07.
All that is unquestionable evidence that the track on the CD has nothing to do with the 1971 recording as in the story we have heard so many times. I have no explanation for all this. I am as shocked as some of you.
Guys, please, the program I mentioned in my first post is a professional mastering application. Download the demo at www.har-bal.com (it's free) and run an analysis of any commercial track.
No track in existence will display a straight curve - everything has significant peaks and troughs, with more energy in bass regions that at higher frequencies, so producing a downward slope as frequency rises.
Yes, mp3 does remove tops and bottoms, but if you convert a WAV file to mp3 and analyse both, you'll see that the curve exhibits only a small difference.
The biggest thing that the mp3 format does is remove depth (because it attempts to remove only 'perceptually insignificant' information - as a result of the masking effect), so has little impact on the frequency curve resulting from an analysis.
Again, please download the demo and find out for yourselves: I'm not arguing an opinion - this is the way mp3 works.
No track in existence will display a straight curve - everything has significant peaks and troughs, with more energy in bass regions that at higher frequencies, so producing a downward slope as frequency rises.
Yes, mp3 does remove tops and bottoms, but if you convert a WAV file to mp3 and analyse both, you'll see that the curve exhibits only a small difference.
The biggest thing that the mp3 format does is remove depth (because it attempts to remove only 'perceptually insignificant' information - as a result of the masking effect), so has little impact on the frequency curve resulting from an analysis.
Again, please download the demo and find out for yourselves: I'm not arguing an opinion - this is the way mp3 works.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]eddieshore wrote: [/QUOTENAME]thomasquinn you're just too stupid to tell the difference between a lossless recording and a compressed piece-of-shit recording.[/QUOTE]
eddieshore, you are being called immature by a 13-year-old.
YOU ARE IMMATURE.
eddieshore, you are being called immature by a 13-year-old.
YOU ARE IMMATURE.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]stark wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yes, mp3 does remove tops and bottoms, but if you convert a WAV file to mp3 and analyse both, you'll see that the curve exhibits only a small difference. [/QUOTE]
Well, I did several times and it's definately not true that there is only a small difference, the difference between lossless and lossy files is very obvious in fact.
Well, I did several times and it's definately not true that there is only a small difference, the difference between lossless and lossy files is very obvious in fact.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'm afraid I agree with Stark. The main difference between an MP3 and a lossless file's spectrum I notice when working with Cool Edit is the audible depth. I cannot see any visual change to the curves, apart from the sudden cut at top and bottom which can be present, but which is also present with tapes.[/QUOTE]
You both are wrong. Lossy compression formats do significatively affect the frequency response of a recording. The main feature it introduces is an exponential decay of all frequencies above a certain one which depends on how much the file is compressed (in other words, it depends on its bitrate). As for the Cool Edit/Audition frequency spectrum display, please remember to check "Linear View".
You both are wrong. Lossy compression formats do significatively affect the frequency response of a recording. The main feature it introduces is an exponential decay of all frequencies above a certain one which depends on how much the file is compressed (in other words, it depends on its bitrate). As for the Cool Edit/Audition frequency spectrum display, please remember to check "Linear View".
It is Barry Mitchell who sells it at E-bay.
Alex, maybe it's the same recording.
"- here on queenzone, same filename, different format and file extension:
• Jan_9th_1971.flac"
that's how I named the file I have been sharing in the hub. I encoded it from the audio CD I was sent by Barry Mitchell. I shared it after Barry had sold about 3 more CDs. I got a message in the hub telling me that the file was mp3 sourced. I was a bit surprised but not too bothered because it can easily happen that someone wo is not familiar with compressed formats makes an mp3.
Wilki, thanks very much for your in-depth analysis. I'll email the seller now.
"- here on queenzone, same filename, different format and file extension:
• Jan_9th_1971.flac"
that's how I named the file I have been sharing in the hub. I encoded it from the audio CD I was sent by Barry Mitchell. I shared it after Barry had sold about 3 more CDs. I got a message in the hub telling me that the file was mp3 sourced. I was a bit surprised but not too bothered because it can easily happen that someone wo is not familiar with compressed formats makes an mp3.
Wilki, thanks very much for your in-depth analysis. I'll email the seller now.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]stark wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
No track in existence will display a straight curve - everything has significant peaks and troughs, with more energy in bass regions that at higher frequencies, so producing a downward slope as frequency rises.[/QUOTE]
Well, the main issue is the CONTINUITY of the line. It has nothing to do with it being straight or full of peaks and valleys. Anyway, how do you describe a 'straight curve'? ;-)
No track in existence will display a straight curve - everything has significant peaks and troughs, with more energy in bass regions that at higher frequencies, so producing a downward slope as frequency rises.[/QUOTE]
Well, the main issue is the CONTINUITY of the line. It has nothing to do with it being straight or full of peaks and valleys. Anyway, how do you describe a 'straight curve'? ;-)