gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680597 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 03:16:45 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 79 Go Down Print
Author Topic: The Stephen Desper Thread  (Read 718526 times)
Charles LePage @ ComicList
Chairman Of The Board
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 982


Hit me with your pet shark.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #175 on: January 16, 2006, 05:00:51 PM »

I'll see what I can do.

When did the problem begin?
Logged

"quiet here, no one got crap to say?" - bringahorseinhere
Reverend Joshua Sloane
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 27


Since I cannot rouse heaven I intend to raise hell


View Profile
« Reply #176 on: January 16, 2006, 05:08:16 PM »

Very strange, i'm logged in as soon as I open this website.
Logged

Did it ever occur to you, Cable, how wise and bountiful God was to put breasts on a woman? Just the right number in just the right place. Did you ever notice that, Cable?
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #177 on: January 16, 2006, 05:13:05 PM »

I'll see what I can do.

When did the problem begin?

At least two weeks ago. ~swd
Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #178 on: January 16, 2006, 05:26:47 PM »

Success!
take care
-Joe

Check your email. ~swd
Logged
Charles LePage @ ComicList
Chairman Of The Board
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 982


Hit me with your pet shark.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #179 on: January 16, 2006, 06:51:17 PM »

Stephen, my suggestion is to delete any cookies you have on your computer that reference smileysmile.net.  Then log back in and choose "forever." 
Logged

"quiet here, no one got crap to say?" - bringahorseinhere
Rocker
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 10622


"Too dumb for New York City, too ugly for L.A."


View Profile WWW
« Reply #180 on: January 17, 2006, 05:14:09 AM »

Stephen, my suggestion is to delete any cookies you have on your computer that reference smileysmile.net.  Then log back in and choose "forever." 


That should work. It was absolute the same problem I had. Delete the cookies and it'll work
Logged

a diseased bunch of mo'fos if there ever was one… their beauty is so awesome that listening to them at their best is like being in some vast dream cathedral decorated with a thousand gleaming American pop culture icons.

- Lester Bangs on The Beach Boys


PRO SHOT BEACH BOYS CONCERTS - LIST


To sum it up, they blew it, they blew it consistently, they continue to blow it, it is tragic and this pathological problem caused The Beach Boys' greatest music to be so underrated by the general public.

- Jack Rieley
Mitchell
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 802



View Profile
« Reply #181 on: January 23, 2006, 12:45:24 PM »

Hi Stephen,

My dad picked up a Sunflower LP, Brother Records/Reprise Records 6382, RS 6382, printed in Canada. I was just wondering if this was "as good as" the US LP release which you have said is the best way to hear the album. Do you know if LPs printed in Canada use the same masters as the US ones, in general?
Logged

Watch out for snakes!
Day Tripper
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


View Profile
« Reply #182 on: January 26, 2006, 09:42:03 AM »

Hello Mr Desper. I'm going to buy your book before I ask you any questions on your recording techniques but I wanted your opinion on something. I've heard some producers say that if they like a record it is usually in this order - 1). Great Song 2). Great Performance 3). Sonic Quality.  Now I've heard songs from the 1960's and before where the drums are pretty dead, the bass guitar has no definition,  or there is a lot of noise (i.e. Tommy James 'Hanky Panky").  Before I bought a Roland digital recorder and recorded my own songs I never payed too much attention to sonic quality but rather the emotional response I got from the song itself. Now I can't listen to my own recordings without being overly critical of the sound. I used to get free recordings done at Full Sail recording school here in Orlando Florida and watched as they would spend hours trying to get a good drum sound.  Do you think people who record quickly and don't experiment with mic placement, mic selection, etc can't get a decent recording? I've read Behind the Glass about producers and for every situation it semed like everyone had a different approach to recording. I've really enjoyed reading this thread because its like being in recording school.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #183 on: January 27, 2006, 12:38:39 PM »

Mr. Desper,

Just thought you might like to know that the blueboard (www.brianwilson.com) has seen a lot of activity by a lot of (really, really uninformed) people who appear to a) question your involvement in Beach Boys work (!) and b) question the legality and/or morality of your copying of the twofers through your device. I tried to argue for you, but alas...some people won't be convinced.

Here's an example, if you care:

"I Googled this guy and he's really an engineer with a finger in lots of different stuff. Claims to have engineered BB albums for 4 years (1968-1972; you could validate this by examining the CD/vinyl credits)."

"Whether or not he has permission to "remaster" BB CDs is anyone's guess. Google him and decide for yourself what's up... "

Ugh. That's one reason why that board is agony...but ignorance is bliss.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
I. Spaceman
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2271

Revolution Never Again


View Profile
« Reply #184 on: January 27, 2006, 12:40:05 PM »

Quote
"I Googled this guy and he's really an engineer with a finger in lots of different stuff. Claims to have engineered BB albums for 4 years (1968-1972; you could validate this by examining the CD/vinyl credits)."

Holy foda. I say, bring back martial law.
Logged

Nobody gives a sh*t about the Record Room
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #185 on: January 27, 2006, 12:49:05 PM »

I've really just got to give up over there. I've been smashing my head against a wall...named Robert Wheeler.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #186 on: January 27, 2006, 09:35:41 PM »

Mr. Desper,

Just thought you might like to know that the blueboard (www.brianwilson.com) has seen a lot of activity by a lot of (really, really uninformed) people who appear to a) question your involvement in Beach Boys work (!) and b) question the legality and/or morality of your copying of the twofers through your device. I tried to argue for you, but alas...some people won't be convinced.

Thanks Luther for that info and link.  Interesting posts by people who are not very informed.  I prefer to stay over here on this website as I find the people here more the fans I like to associate with. 

As to the points raised in the Brianwilson.com website:

(1) As I understand the requirements of the copyright law, as long as the royalties are paid to the performers, a copy can be made of the original CD that was purchused by the buyer.  I require that the actual CD be sent to me. This proves to me that the Beach Boys' received their due royalties.  The copy is authorized under the home recording act.  If you want to get technical about it, playing the CD on your computer makes a copy of the CD before you hear it, anyway. I don't need any "permission" to make copies of a CD owned by a fan. I may call it a "re-master" but legally it is a "transformative copy." Under this definition, modifications from the original may occur.  By the way, I have seven lawers with whom I deal. A passed this idea by two of them and both thought it was within the legal framework of The Home Recording Act of 1972.
(2) As to the silver contacts mentioned, the poster is uninformed.  I am using the actual device I used way back in the 1970's to make these copies.  Not only does this equipment use gold connectors, they are XLR balanced connectors with gold pins as used in studios.  This is not the 360Surround device, this is the real thing. In addition, I use some very technical edge-cutting devices to restore clearity to what is already on the CD but cannot be heard.  Not to blow my own horn, but I am a very smart guy.  Do you think I stopped improving my technology after I left the Beach Boy organization?  I went on to build a multi-million dollar business based on my inventions and have continued to improve various aspects of the audio field for more than thirty years.  Chuck Britz and Mark Linett are very fine engineers. I have a great deal of respect for their work and their recordings. But I am not a typical recording engineer. I am more of a pioneer type of engineer.  One that moves in un-charted waters. I have several patents on recording devices. I am an inventor and an engineer. What I do is not just record records in the standard way. I branch out into the unknown. What I did with the Beach Boys was very experimental, yet kept compatable with the conventional release methods of the day. 
(3) Yet I remain a Beach Boy fan. In this idea of copying CD's for people I am using equipment that I have spent years developing and thousands of dollars in building and improving.  The cost of making a copy for each fan that supplies me their CD is not just making a copy through a simple device.  The twenty dollar fee is the amoryized cost of all those years of research and results that goes into each copy made. The poster is again uninformed as to what my offer includes.  For example, you cannot reduce all analog functions to digital as the poster assumes. To think that you can, is to show your ignorance about audio. So this is not something that you can reduce to an algorythm and copy. Besides, creating algorythms is not a simple matter anyway. Does this poster think that people write formulas do it for for free?  And, analog equipment made to improve audio is even more expensive.
(4) So, the twenty dollar fee covers my research, all the extra time I have to go through to turn around the copy (my time is worth $200/hour) and it gives a value to the copy.  Each CD is also signed and numbered by me.  That gives it some value if you are a collector. After all, since it's a digital CD, you can copy it anyway. After you hear this copy, you will not think that the twenty dollars you paid for it was ill spent.  Besides, if you don't think it's worth the money, send it back and I'll refund your money. So what's the beef? 

I will be posting more on the offer of coping the CD's I worked on in the not-too-distant future.

Again thinks for the heads-up on the BW.com thread.  You can copy and post this over there if you wish to.

And, Brian -- if you should be reading this -- You know this is what our beloved Carl would want to happen. 


~swd 
 
« Last Edit: January 27, 2006, 09:44:22 PM by Stephen W. Desper » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #187 on: January 27, 2006, 09:47:55 PM »

Amen. Thanks, Mr. Desper.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #188 on: January 27, 2006, 10:02:08 PM »

Hello Mr Desper. Do you think people who record quickly and don't experiment with mic placement, mic selection, etc can't get a decent recording? I've read Behind the Glass about producers and for every situation it semed like everyone had a different approach to recording. I've really enjoyed reading this thread because its like being in recording school.

Recording is an art form.  There is no right nor wrong method.  

As to drum sounds,  I prefer to get a drum sound within ten minutes.  If you are working with a good studio drummer, that is about the time you have anyway (in a union date).  I have also spent as long as two days getting a drum sound.  As an engineer, if that is the amount of time the producer wishes to spend on this task, then I'm in to it.  If they want a good drum sound after ten minutes, I'll give them one.

Brian Wilson did not spend a lot of time getting a drum sound.  He spent time working with the drummer working out the part he wanted played and left it to the engineer to get the sound.  At least that was my experience with Brian back in the 60-70's.  Maybe today he is different. Ask Mark Linett how long Brian worked on the drum sound for SMiLE.  But, I bet it was not too long.

And, I agree.  The performace is what sells the song, not the engineering.  However, the engineer can influence the performance.  If the performer likes the sound the engineer has recorded, he will perform better.  If the engineer gets in the way of the performer or the performance, it will suffer.  So it's a symbiotic relationship, but weighted over to the performer, not the engineer.  In the end, the public remembers the artist, not the engineer.
 ~swd
Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #189 on: January 27, 2006, 10:38:41 PM »

Amen. Thanks, Mr. Desper.

Thanks Luther for your sticking up for me.

If you, or the poster who could not find me on the web, wish to GOOGLE me, here's some links:

 
Google link to Steve Desper >>>  http://www.google.com/search?q=Steve+Desper&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N
 
Google link to Stephen W. Desper >>>  http://www.google.com/search?q=Stephen+W.+Desper&hl=en&lr=&start=20&sa=N
 
Google link to Desper, Spatializer (and Desper Products, Inc.) http://www.google.com/search?q=Desper,+Spatializer&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N

Here is the link to my profile on line:

h t t p : / / u s . g e o c i t i e s . c o m / f a n g a t h e r i n g / D e s p e r b i o . h t m l

For some strange reason if I type in my profile URL address in this thread, it comes up looking like this:
Link to my profile (not updated)  >>>  http://us.geocities.com/fangathering/Desperbio.html
That is incorrect.  I have tried entering it in its correct form many times, but the program changes it to the above.  Don't know why. The only way I can give you the correct link is to place spaces between the letters and then you will have to re-type the whole thing without the spaces.
(Mr. LePage take notice). ~swd

PS  Mr. Wheeler is invited to post to this board, provided he reads all previous posts in the archive and gets himself up-to-date.  Unfortunately I don't have the time nor desire to post to other boards (execpt Susan's).



« Last Edit: February 03, 2006, 08:59:32 PM by Charles LePage » Logged
Robert Wheeler
Smiley Smile Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 7


View Profile
« Reply #190 on: January 28, 2006, 07:09:10 AM »

Ok, it seems that you guys are referring to my response to a thread on www.BrianWilson.com. Originally I couldn't be bothered to argue the toss on this, but seeing as I'm being referred to by name, I might as well put it direct to the man.

First of all Mr Desper, I think the stuff you did with the Beach Boys was awesome. In the current era when engineering aspires for plainness and invention within the confines of accepted boundaries, those who ignore and innovate beyond those boundaries are in short supply.

However, I can not see any way in which you can justify charging $20 for the act of simply copying a disc. I understand that you feel that you have a right to do this under the terms of the Home Recording Act. At best you may have the right to recover basic media and copying costs, but there is no way you have the right to recover costs against previous commercial development. That is clearly outside the bounds of the Home Recording Act. I also fail to understand how, if you have built multi-million businesses around it and have all these valuable patents on the technology, why you would need to recover costs for development from this scheme. You have no right to recover costs on a technology you have developed on the back of master recordings owned by someone else.

You may charge $200 an hour for work, but this is not professional work you are doing, and again if it was then it would be clearly outside the boundaries of the Home Recording Act. You give the impression that you are just dedicated to the music and the fans hearing it in the way you feel as the engineer, is the best way to hear it. Yet if it was purely a labour of love, you not be charging $20 for it.

Non of that adds up to me.

In regards to my comments I made on the device, I was referring to the 360Surround device. I've got no idea what your analog box looks like. But that domestic 360Surround thing looked really ropey. It was advertised on your site as being of a high quality build with high quality connectors, but it looked like a piece of junk to me. That's my opinion. As I said in my original post, I've never heard the thing, so it may be amazing for all I know. But it didn't look high quality to me.

Regards the possibility of modeling the device in software: As I understand it from elsewhere in this thread, you have already produced a digital hardware version of the professional device. I would be really surprised if it was not possible to emulate the functions of such a device in software. It can only be a matter of processing power if it is difficult. Seeing as many filters such as Dolby Pro Logic and SQ are possible to recreate in software, I find it hard to believe that a technology encoded into a record in the early 1970's could not be decoded in software in 2006. There needn't be any costs involved in developing such a decoder, its the sort of project the open source community would pounce upon. Again it's not about developing algorythms. The chances are you could probably emulate the device component by component if need be. However, I think it would probably be easy to write the algorythms within the community.

I understand that you have valuable patents on the work and opening up such technology would potentially devalue that technology. But, it just seems silly that you have this technology that you say is so fantastic, but it is not available to anyone, unless they have your handmade device. Exploited commercially the software route could make your patents really deliver profits for you. If you sold that software for $20, I would probably buy it, if I was convinced that there was any real benefit to using it. In fact if there was a product available for $12.95 that plugged in to winamp, I'd be right up for it.

Do you think the product at http://store.yahoo.net/spatializer-estore/spatstreamfo.html could do that? That is the company that owns your patents isn't it? It must be a totally different technology, because, as you said before, it would be very difficult to translate your technology into software, that you could buy for a PC for $12.95. Surf's up and Sunflower do sound quite interesting through this plugin though, with the default settings anyway.

And this is my last problem with the whole thing. I don't understand what this device or process or whatever it is is supposed to be doing. It's a spatializer isn't it? What makes it different to other spatializers? I've got quite a good understanding of wave physics theory, can you refer me to the patents numbers so I can research what is actually going on?

So I'm afraid I remain of the opinion that it is a scam, Mr Desper.



Logged
NimrodsSon
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


View Profile
« Reply #191 on: January 28, 2006, 07:52:58 AM »

A Scam??!!! To get Sunflower and Surf's Up the way they were meant to be heard by the producers and engineer for a little fee of twenty dollars for all of Mr. Desper's time and efforts? I'll tell you what's a scam, and that's the record company refusing to sell the correct CD/LP for all these years. I personally can't wait to get my copy, and I am extremely grateful to Mr. Desper for allowing us to get this for only $20, as opposed to having to pay for the $1000+ 360 surround unit in order to hear the albums correctly.
Logged
Glenn Greenberg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 307


View Profile
« Reply #192 on: January 28, 2006, 08:05:54 AM »

Mr. Desper:

Would you have any idea how much postage I should put on the self-addressed stamped envelope that you would use to send the 2 CDs back to me?  (I live in New York.)

Just want to make sure I put enough on the SASE!

Thanks.
Logged

Glenn
Susan
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 446



View Profile
« Reply #193 on: January 28, 2006, 09:07:44 AM »

In regards to my comments I made on the device, I was referring to the 360Surround device. I've got no idea what your analog box looks like. But that domestic 360Surround thing looked really ropey. It was advertised on your site as being of a high quality build with high quality connectors, but it looked like a piece of junk to me. That's my opinion. As I said in my original post, I've never heard the thing, so it may be amazing for all I know. But it didn't look high quality to me.

That is one of the most ignorant things i've read in a long, long time.  A sound device LOOKS like junk...so without hearing it, you assume it doesn't work.

I'm speechless. 
Logged

All of My Dad's Truck's on-line tracks all in one place!
Robert Wheeler
Smiley Smile Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 7


View Profile
« Reply #194 on: January 28, 2006, 09:16:38 AM »

Replace your jaw and read it again Susan. I quite clearly say that it may sound amazing but it looked like a piece of junk. I was commenting on the fact that the blurb on the website said it was of a high quality build with high quality connectors, but it did not look it fromt he picture. You did in fact quote that whole piece of text.

I know I'm not going to win any friends by criticising the actions of a Beach Boys engineering legend, but you could at least do me the decency of reading what I actually wrote Smiley

In regards to my comments I made on the device, I was referring to the 360Surround device. I've got no idea what your analog box looks like. But that domestic 360Surround thing looked really ropey. It was advertised on your site as being of a high quality build with high quality connectors, but it looked like a piece of junk to me. That's my opinion. As I said in my original post, I've never heard the thing, so it may be amazing for all I know. But it didn't look high quality to me.

That is one of the most ignorant things i've read in a long, long time.  A sound device LOOKS like junk...so without hearing it, you assume it doesn't work.

I'm speechless. 
Logged
Jonas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1923


I've got the Beach Boys, my friends got the Stones


View Profile
« Reply #195 on: January 28, 2006, 09:37:46 AM »

hey my oldsmobile 88 looks like a piece of junk but it takes me from point a to point b. so why lower your expectations on a product that has to do with aural senses by just looking at it? have you ever seen a UA LA-2A? Its an ugly clunky huge box with two big knobs...yet its highly used and regarded in the audio industry as one of the best pre amps out there. So, I think Susan read it right the first time around....you developed an opinion on something by just looking at it...don't judge a book by its cover.

As for the $20 fee, I'm sure if you were to sit down and calculate how much Mr. Desper's time is valued by the hour, $20 would barely cover the time for him to sit down, burn you a cd, put it in a package, and send it back to you. So cut him some slack, he wants to help BB fans get true engineered sounds from the albums he worked on.

If you're having a problem on affording the $20, maybe we can start a drive? Shrug
Logged

We would like to record under an atmosphere of calmness. - Brian Wilson
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1IgXT3xFdU
Susan
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 446



View Profile
« Reply #196 on: January 28, 2006, 10:21:36 AM »

I read it, Robert.  What astounds me is your assumption of how well the thing works based on a photgraph of it.  It is a SOUND DEVICE.  One must actually HEAR IT before one can make a judgement on how it works.

This isn't my fight...i just think you should hear what the device does before you denegrate it.
Logged

All of My Dad's Truck's on-line tracks all in one place!
Robert Wheeler
Smiley Smile Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 7


View Profile
« Reply #197 on: January 28, 2006, 10:50:36 AM »

I was just stating what was obvious from looking at the picture, and that was explicit in the original thread and the post here. The claim the device was a high quality well built audio device was hard to justify when you looked at the little box with silver male phono's sticking out of it.

I said all along it may sound fantastic in spite of that, but the picture did little to convince me.


I read it, Robert.  What astounds me is your assumption of how well the thing works based on a photgraph of it.  It is a SOUND DEVICE.  One must actually HEAR IT before one can make a judgement on how it works.

This isn't my fight...i just think you should hear what the device does before you denegrate it.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2006, 10:55:50 AM by Robert Wheeler » Logged
Robert Wheeler
Smiley Smile Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 7


View Profile
« Reply #198 on: January 28, 2006, 10:55:25 AM »

As I mentioned in my original post on this thread, the amount Mr Desper charges for his time is irrelevent. It's like say, ok, I'm going to rob a car to order for you, but as I'm normally a car dealer, I'll charge you the rate I work for that on top of the cost of the car. It makes no odds, I do not think Mr Desper has the right to do it. I have another issue with the basic premise of sending out a disc for money, but I will wait for Mr Desper to respond before I address it.

(snip)
As for the $20 fee, I'm sure if you were to sit down and calculate how much Mr. Desper's time is valued by the hour, $20 would barely cover the time for him to sit down, burn you a cd, put it in a package, and send it back to you. So cut him some slack, he wants to help BB fans get true engineered sounds from the albums he worked on.

If you're having a problem on affording the $20, maybe we can start a drive? Shrug

Logged
Stephen W. Desper
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1365


Maintain Dynamics - Keep Peaks below 100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #199 on: January 28, 2006, 11:09:51 AM »

Ok, it seems that you guys are referring to my response to a thread on www.BrianWilson.com. Originally I couldn't be bothered to argue the toss on this, but seeing as I'm being referred to by name, I might as well put it direct to the man.

First of all Mr Desper, I think the stuff you did with the Beach Boys was awesome. In the current era when engineering aspires for plainness and invention within the confines of accepted boundaries, those who ignore and innovate beyond those boundaries are in short supply. Thank you for your kind words.

However, I can not see any way in which you can justify charging $20 for the act of simply copying a disc. I agree.  A simple copy should be done for free. This is not a simple copy.  Read the information on the site. >>> http://community-2.webtv.net/askswd/CopyServiceInfo/ I understand that you feel that you have a right to do this under the terms of the Home Recording Act. At best you may have the right to recover basic media and copying costs, but there is no way you have the right to recover costs against previous commercial development. This is not a commercial business. I'm providing this service for Beach Boy fans as an educational discovery. This is a chance to hear what we've all been talking about for years and years, but what the actual commercial market has failed to address. That is clearly outside the bounds of the Home Recording Act. Like many things in Law, interpertation is sometimes varied. However in this case we are not taling about large numbers. I doubt that there will be more than fifty takers of my offer. I think Bootlegs are much more of a problem. Nevertheless, if I continue to get feedback such as yours, I will end the offer.  It's more of a labor of love than anything.  Frankly, I've got more on my plate than I can handle, but as I said before, I not only have a history with the group, I'm also a fan. I believe my fellow Beach Boy fans would enjoy and find of interest hearing these recordings the way I listen to them. I can't transport all the fans to my livingroom, but I can make a copy of their CD that will reproduce on their system to a great degree as closer to what Carl and I heard durning mixdown. Again, this is purly an educational exercise. I also fail to understand how, if you have built multi-million businesses around it and have all these valuable patents on the technology, why you would need to recover costs for development from this scheme. I built a business on my patented invention. We're talking here about mastering techniques that I use. It's apples and fruitcakes. You're way out of your league on this one. I'm retired from the recording business. I'm still a BB fan and the albums I recorded still interest me -- and some of the folks that are still fellow fans.  You have no right to recover costs on a technology you have developed on the back of master recordings owned by someone else. You are correct. But I'm not making copies of master recordings. I'm just copying a fan's CD from my digital player to analog to some processing devices and back to a digital CD cutter.  The way you talk it would seem that anyone playing a CD on their computer and applying EQ or dynamic compression schemes (MP3) has no right to do this either.  You know, you could also accept a fan's CD in the mail and make a copy of it in some modified way that you believe is better and send it back to them. I don't think the record companies care if people add bass, treble, mid-range, compression, or other changes to their product as long as the product is bought and paid for so the record company gets their due profit and the artist gets their due royalties.  Do you know it is illegal to play a CD on the radio?  Why do they get away with it.  Because it creates a market for the music.  It use to be that the record companies thought that digital was going to ruin them. All the file sharing and such.  But CD sales are up -- the reason, it's created a new market -- a market that the big companies are recognising as a source of income.

You may charge $200 an hour for work, but this is not professional work you are doing, and again if it was then it would be clearly outside the boundaries of the Home Recording Act. I said my time was worth 200/hr, not that I'm charging that amount.  What is your time worth? Everyone's time is worth something.  I base mine on annual income divided by normal work hours in a given year. In other words, my time has a decent value and I have a reputation in this industry. There is value there. To give away my time is to devalue it and the service I'm providing to my fellow fans. You give the impression that you are just dedicated to the music and the fans hearing it in the way you feel as the engineer, is the best way to hear it. That is correct. Yet if it was purely a labour of love, you not be charging $20 for it. The love is free.  It's the labor that takes time and time is money.

Non of that adds up to me.  I hope I am changing your outlook.

In regards to my comments I made on the device, I was referring to the 360Surround device. I've got no idea what your analog box looks like. But that domestic 360Surround thing looked really ropey. It was advertised on your site as being of a high quality build with high quality connectors, but it looked like a piece of junk to me. That's my opinion. As I said in my original post, I've never heard the thing, so it may be amazing for all I know. But it didn't look high quality to me.  I made the 360Surround device only for Beach Boy fans.  I made it as cheap as I could without compromising quality of sound to a large degree.  Yea you could say it looks dopy -- it was not intended for the commercial market. It's built in a PVC tube with seals on each end. It looks dopy all right, but the fans don't care.  You put it out of sight when you hook it up. The advertisment does not mention connectors, which are standard nickel plated copper. Gold connetors would push the price up and not improve the sound.  Remember the 360Surround device was made for fans only and in limited quantity. They can only afford too much. I wanted to reach as many as I could.  But I have my standards too.  I put the building money into good internal components. Capcitors were audio grade panasonic types or polyisters selected for low disapation factors, all resistors were 1% film types, the power supply was a requlated type, the circuit board met NASA specs.  All this gave specifications (derived by an independent testing laboratiory) of Frequency Response +/- 0.01dB from 5Hz to 50Hz; THD of .016% at 20dB beyond the normal operational level; noise of -108dBu from 20Hz to 20kHz. These are specifications that exceed those of a CD or DVD.

I'll tell you a funny story.  A friend of mine whos family lives in Lebanon decided to take a 360Surround unit to his brother who is a Beach Boy fan.  But when I got to customs they confiscated the unit because it looked like a bomb!  And it does look somewhat like a firecracker, I'd say. In the end I mailed one to him.  So the looks are sort of dopy -- but the sound is not.
 

Regards the possibility of modeling the device in software: As I understand it from elsewhere in this thread, you have already produced a digital hardware version of the professional device. I would be really surprised if it was not possible to emulate the functions of such a device in software. It can only be a matter of processing power if it is difficult. Well thank you for your engineering insight.  My team of engineers wrote software that sold in the millions of licenses that mimiced the workings of the origninal patented analog device.  It was OK for the mass market. I think the analog version sounds better and I have gone on to improve it far beyond what is out there.  However the market is very small for such improvements so they live in my lab at the moment. Seeing as many filters such as Dolby Pro Logic and SQ are possible to recreate in software, I find it hard to believe that a technology encoded into a record in the early 1970's could not be decoded in software in 2006. I suggest you put down your calculator and listen to some good old LPs on fine equipment.  You just don't know how good music can sound. Dolby in digial sounds different than Dolby in analog. I feel for you guys of the digital generation. You think a sampled piano instrument is the same sound as an acoustic piano.   There needn't be any costs involved in developing such a decoder, its the sort of project the open source community would pounce upon. Here we go again with all this free talk.  You're the kind of engineer I've been looking for -- one that works for free. What a value your time is!  Again it's not about developing algorythms. Yes it is. And you have to listen in real time.  That is, you can't speed up the process. The chances are you could probably emulate the device component by component if need be. However, I think it would probably be easy to write the algorythms within the community.  Why don't you do that for the community then?

I understand that you have valuable patents on the work and opening up such technology would potentially devalue that technology. But, it just seems silly that you have this technology that you say is so fantastic, but it is not available to anyone, unless they have your handmade device. No what I said was that I have offered the keys to unlock the trapped version that is encoded within the CD but the record companies prefer to stay with what they have.  I think the diehard fan would like to hear the alternate version and I'm offering them the chance to compare as an educational exercise. Exploited commercially the software route could make your patents really deliver profits for you. If you sold that software for $20, I would probably buy it, if I was convinced that there was any real benefit to using it. In fact if there was a product available for $12.95 that plugged in to winamp, I'd be right up for it.  You have no idea how the market works.  You can download anything you want and use it.  However, If you want the guy who originally recorded these albums to make a copy of them and optimize the sound of them in his fasion, then here's your chance.  

Do you think the product at http://store.yahoo.net/spatializer-estore/spatstreamfo.html could do that? That is the company that owns your patents isn't it? It must be a totally different technology, because, as you said before, it would be very difficult to translate your technology into software, that you could buy for a PC for $12.95. Surf's up and Sunflower do sound quite interesting through this plugin though, with the default settings anyway. In this CD copy offer, we are looking for more than PC sound through plugin that downloads for next to nothing.  Don't get me as past Beach Boy recording engineer mixed up with me as founder of Spatializer.

And this is my last problem with the whole thing. I don't understand what this device or process or whatever it is is supposed to be doing. It's a spatializer isn't it? What makes it different to other spatializers? I've got quite a good understanding of wave physics theory, can you refer me to the patents numbers so I can research what is actually going on?  Mastering is not a device nor a process, it's an art form.  You're too mixed up with numbers to understand the concept of art, me thinks.   

So I'm afraid I remain of the opinion that it is a scam, Mr Desper.  Not one 360Surround device has been return to me for refund. 40 million chips have been sold. Many more millions of licenses have been issued to manufactures by the company.  It's not a scam.  Nor is my copy idea.  So please, keep your money and your standard copy. Your level of enjoyment is not what this offer is aimed to please.  ~swd




Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 79 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.936 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!