I've thought about not replying to this, but your tone annoys me. More fool me :P So I apologise for being involved in this most ludicrous of threads.
I don't quite get what you're saying - you're right. Please try and construct well formed sentences, it makes it easier for me. I'm suggesting people can try the pitch control technique - it's not, as you seem to be saying (and this is a prime example of where you get incoherent), cheating or impossible. It isn't: I do it, others do it and it's fine. It's OK. Maybe you just can't manage it. That's OK too. Maybe you feel your 6 years' professional experience is being undermined? I'm sorry about that. All I am suggesting is that it can be done and that it has it's benefits. But then *you* are the one telling us about "horses for courses", so you know this, right? Anyway, I'm not going to continue flogging this dead horse. If you feel the need to continue your hilarious gags like the CJ initials one, do it offlist, and try the even better gag: "Have you got a rubber, Jonny". It kills me every time. Sorry 313. Maybe I've been reading the DHP too much lately. > I you're all getting the wrong end of the stick with what I'm saying. > > Firstly, my comments were in association to "a little bit" upon the > circumstances (i.e. awkward venue acoustics, bad/underpowered/non-existant > monitors, headphone breakdown). Secondly, I worked long and hard enough to > mix either via touching or shifting since 1991 (professionally for 6 years) > using a mix of the two as a basis. Lastly, "You can *hear* whether a record > is too fast or slow. You don't have to know in advance." - ahhh now I know > why headphones and a monitor come in handy. Please. :) > > I'll reiterate.... Horses for courses as they say. > > BTW, you're initials ain't CJ are they? :) > > I think I got out of bed on the wrong side this morning. This sarcastic > headache won't waver. > > Dscaper
