New! JingleMad Radio webplayer. Find it at https://jinglemad.com/webplayer

NEW Personal Jingles from JAM/PAMS

Comments

  • Can't go worng with those PAMS cuts! They sound great!
  • edited August 27
    I may get bollocked for this...but its an "observation" by someone who has been
    listening to e.g Series 31 cuts for over 50 years...and still does...

    There's something "not quite right" to my ears in the mixing of some recent re-sings of some PAMS items from JAM.

    The vocals are nice and distinct and clean - excellent. Exactly the level of what would be expected from JAM.

    But - there's something in the tracks - is it a mixed-down grouped-tracks thing from the server?
    Rather than Gawd-knows how many individual "channels" running on the desk?

    Somehow, the instrumentation under the vocals seems muted in some way - whether its the frequencies
    a little dulled on EQ, or the vocals seem a bit higher in the mix than the brass "traditionally" used to be
    on those classic cuts, or whatever.

    e.g. the "original" sono "Music" on that 31 cut isn't as "lively" as my ears tell me it would typically have
    been, and its "quieter" and lower in volume than the new group custom vocals on the cut;
    and we know that Jon's custom sono for anyone for years always sounds a "wee bit louder" than any
    accompanying group vocals.

    The classic PAMS "rhythm bed" elements on cuts that made them famous for carrying "variable logos"
    also sound a wee bit "suppressed" in the mixing too.

    Don't get me wrong - I'm a fan of Jon's resings of classic PAMS as much as anyone (and still want a couple)
    but either its maybe something to do with presenting the audio via Soundcloud, or my ears (or.....), or
    something is losing a bit of "sparkle" in the processing somewhere?

    As they say on the exam papers... :)
    "Discuss"

  • edited August 27
    I deleted & Re-Uploaded that Series 31 Jingle--how does it sound to you, now; Iain?
  • Same, Neil. As described above.

    Can't do a "quick comparison" tonight, but I might try some audio tomorrow.
  • I thought maybe I had accidentally uploaded a file I was "playing" with--but this Re-Upload is DIRECT from the .zip file that was downloaded from the JAM server--so at least I am "off the hook"...:)
  • yeah. so let me suggest something. I was told by Ben Freedman that Meeks had a lot of custom gear made. for example, a loaded reel to reel recorder sporting a couple extra tracks, clearly NOT standard. Ben had to mickey mouse the master tapes. the equipment (stock) off the shelf was 'normal'. 2 tracks, 4 tracks, 8 and a jump to 16. take this issue and compound it by stuffing it into the digital domain and youre off and running! crap on crap. mask it with reverb and ultra bright vocals (foolish thinking) and what you, and I and other old farts hear is the result of sloppy prep as the actual issue is masked. I hate computers. but, realize the masses accept massive compression on an ipod through ear buds.....,

    I call it the 'big mac' of audio. somebody has to telll you what youre eating or show you a picture, cause your taste buds will never know whats in your mouth!


    your thoughts?
  • OH! b.t.w., nice selection of cuts offered.
  • Thanks, Bob..:)
  • I was told by Ben Freedman that Meeks had a lot of custom gear mad...take this issue and compound it by stuffing it into the digital domain and youre off and running! crap on crap.
    your thoughts?

    Do you really want my thoughts? OK.

    The fact is that Ben Freedman never worked at PAMS a day in his life. I did. Bill Meeks had one piece of custom gear made, and that was the 10-track machine using 1" tape when the standard at the time was 8-tracks. Ben had to "mickey mouse the master tapes" (your words). We, on the other hand, went to the expense of having custom 10-track playback heads built so we could transfer the masters properly.

    But that's not really relevant to the cuts which Leibo posted, because all of those masters were originally on 4-track. So let's see, what could possibly be different between now and 55+ years ago when those cuts were originally done? Here's a partial list:

    Different century.
    Different singers.
    Different studio.
    Different microphones.
    Different board.
    Different processing.
    Stereo vs. Mono
    ...to name just a few.

    You can badmouth digital all you want, but we have top of the line 24-bit converters and once the audio is in the computer we can remove analog tape hiss and hum from the original tracks. So what you're hearing is actually cleaner than it was originally. Also we only supply finished product as WAV files, not in any compressed format such as mp3.

    If you are under the misguided impression that we are marketing "crap on crap", then you have no appreciation at all for the amount of time and dedication we put into making these jingles. And you don't realize what a miracle it is that these cuts can be produced in 2022 in the first place. My thoughts are: Perhaps you should know more about what you're talking about.

  • edited August 29
    e.g. the "original" sono "Music" on that 31 cut isn't as "lively" as my ears tell me it would typically have
    been, and its "quieter" and lower in volume than the new group custom vocals on the cut;

    See my previous post for a list of possible differences. However, if you watch a VU Meter during that Series 31 cut you'll see that the sono is just as loud as the vocal. But the vocal is brighter, so perhaps you are perceiving it as louder. I think the biggest difference you're hearing is that the tracks are mixed in stereo, and you're probably used to hearing them in mono. In stereo the "punch" may be diluted a little bit, depending on what you're listening on. And, again, when PAMS was playing back tracks from a 4-track Ampex through a Neumann board, it's going to sound different than playing on different equipment half a century later.

    We can artificially brighten the brass tracks, or reduce the volume of the vocal, if Mr. Leibowitz requests that. But our primary concern is for the vocals to be intelligible.
  • nleibo wrote: »

    These are fantastic! Len G had some of these done for GEM when I was on there.

    Vocals sound great to me. Great choice of cuts too. A very polished sound/production as always from JAM!

    I bet they're great fun to use on the air!
  • edited August 29
    Appreciate the technical background above on you being able resing the older PAMS material Jon - thank you :)

    As for Neil's 31 item - I dont have analogue VU stereo metering now (my two old semipro Ferrograph tape machines went to a local telecomms museum a couple ofyears ago), just have the admittedly poorer digital graphics levels on the PC, which do somehow show a difference in levels -
    Perhaps indeed the difference of "punch" of me listening on a cheapo 10 year old computer sound system rather than analogue gear I had before. Ah well...

    Hope that you might get the opportunity to re,-open / extend the Personal Cuts scheme again before too long :)

    IJ
  • Let me (hopefully) conclude this "thread" by Thanking Jon for his work-- I am very "satisfied'!
  • nleibo wrote: »

    These are fantastic! Len G had some of these done for GEM when I was on there.

    Vocals sound great to me. Great choice of cuts too. A very polished sound/production as always from JAM!

    I bet they're great fun to use on the air!

    Thank You, Tony...
  • Thanks Jon. I Love digital . But its fun to listen to old stuff, and lovehear the difference. The old stuff { Even with snap crackle pop} was and is great. If I wasn't on a very limited disability income I would have a cut made. And If I was still in radio I would. But I just sing along and imagine.
  • Just got round to listen your cuts and they sound Great , personally I think Jon has done great job and the Vocals are excellent 👍
  • I concur--Thanks, Martin!
  • Love all your cuts - They sound great - I love that cut 5 - and it sounds as good today as on the first day of Radio 1 - years and years ago ~(Before I was born) - I'm sure you are delighted with them - I know every time I've had a Jingle arrive from JAM its like Christmas x 25!!!
  • mb wrote: »
    Love all your cuts - They sound great - I love that cut 5 - and it sounds as good today as on the first day of Radio 1 - years and years ago ~(Before I was born) - I'm sure you are delighted with them - I know every time I've had a Jingle arrive from JAM its like Christmas x 25!!!

    For me, too; MB--Thanks!
  • Absolutely love these cuts. Nice picks. Thanks for posting.
  • Wow, Neil. What a selection of jingles - some of my all-time favourite PAMS cuts in there. They sound fantastic. Bravo.
  • You can't go wrong with the PAMS material. I notice Jon has a way of taking the cuts and "revitalziing" the lyrics (i.e--Jon's Opening Jingle: "Rewound Radio Completely Live from the Jingle Palace --in Dallas"---was originally a mediocre lyriced "77 WABC--THE IN SOUND, FOR THE IN TOWN, NEW YORK , FIRST IN THE U.S. OF A." (obviously written before Jon's arrival at PAMS).
  • I think these cuts are absolutely fantastic!

    A great selection of PAMS classics, mixed to perfection :)
  • Thank You!
  • Hi Neil, enjoyed your interview with JW several months go. Any chance of hearing some of these please. e mail me? Dare I say it, an mp3 download would be welcome.I've been PAMS/ JAM fan for 50 years. bryanjlambert@gmail.com. P.S. Thanks in anticipation
  • My "Interview" with JW? Not sure what you're referring to Bryan. Please elaborate..
Sign In or Register to comment.