[klaatumail] Re: Is It Me?
- From: "Whyrmie" <Whyrmie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <klaatumail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:47:08 -0400
Sure Bill,
I can do that.
http://bit.ly/Vm1VwA
I've added the Attic version on the bottom, and unlike last time I haven't
equalized the overall volumes so now the Bullseye version shows as the
loudest, but it also looks like the loudest bits have been lowered and it
appears clipped (though it doesn't actually sound clipped). I guess
"compressed" is the word. My understanding is that this reduces the dynamic
response.
And even when you look at the quieter parts, I think the Klaatunes looks
better than even the Attic. But that might be because the volume of the
Attic version is lower overall.
. . ... Scott . . ¶;-D
----- Original Message -----
From: <billmulvihill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <klaatumail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:39 PM
Subject: [klaatumail] Re: Is It Me?
> How about a .wav comparison instead of an mp3?
>
> That would cover all the info the CD has as opposed to an mp3.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Mulvy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Whyrmie" <Whyrmie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: klaatumail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 11:57:04 AM
> Subject: [klaatumail] Re: Is It Me?
>
> So,
> I received my new copy of "Hope" and think it sounds awesome. But since I
> can't really rely on my ears or my speakers, I did a visual comparison of
> the tune "Prelude" by looking at the waveforms between the new cd and the
> Bullseye release.
> Find it here: http://bit.ly/QPHWCl
>
> As you can see (fwiw), the Klaatunes version has better dynamic response.
> I like that. I like it A LOT.
>
> . . ... Scott Teague
>
Other related posts:
