WHO? HOW? WHAT? I’ve enjoyed reading EQ for years. This is the first time I’ve wanted to write in and I can’t tell from the magazine or your website where or who to email. [You want Eugene? Try] But I’ve got a question about Matt Donner’s “The 3 Best Pro Tools Tips Ever” (Oct. 2005 EQ )


I’ve enjoyed reading EQ for years. This is the first time I’ve wanted to write in and I can’t tell from the magazine or your website where or who to email. [You want Eugene? Try] But I’ve got a question about Matt Donner’s “The 3 Best Pro Tools Tips Ever” (Oct. 2005 EQ). In Tip 1 he describes setting up a send to use as a headphone mix. When he instructs to choose Edit>Copy to Send, I don’t find that option in my PT LE 6.7. He claims Pro Tools users other than Mbox users can use this technique and I’m a Digi 002 user so I should qualify. What information is missing here?
Thanks, Brian

Matt Donner responds:
I. Pro Tools LE DOES NOT support copy-to-send as the article mentions. Author’s error.
II. Copy Special/ Paste/Special is reserved for HD ONLY. THIS WILL NOT WORK.
III. Suggested work-around:
a. Hold CTRL while assigning the outputs of the tracks to output 7–8. This will mirror the outs 1–2 to outs 7–8. This will allow you to use outs 7–8 as feeds to the headphone mixer AND maintaining any automation without having to split outs 1–2. However, any
changes in the main mix will be reflected to out 7–8 as well and there is no adjusting the levels of mix to talent.

b. Hold CTRL while assigning the outputs to a series of internal buses. For example, CTRL assign the drums to bus 1–2, bass to
3–4, etc. This will split the signal from each track to BOTH outs 1–2 and the buses. Create Aux Sub-group channels whose inputs
match the buses used. Set the levels to 0dB as a starting reference. Route these Auxes to 7–8. From here, you now have
individual control over how much of each track goes to the headphone mixes. This allows the Automation from the mix to be
maintained while ALSO having control over adding or subtracting gain to the HP.


It was great to read Joe Chiccarelli interviewing Ken Scott. As one of Bowie’s other producers, I worked with Ken on the early stuff and other projects as well. I have always regarded him as an engineer’s engineer, right up there with Geoff Emerick. As a producer he’s made a wonderful contribution to our culture. A few things that Ken said should be remembered and taken seriously by today’s producers and engineers though. I think a 10-year old child can plug a mic into a pre-amp and record it flat, there is no art in that. Ken (Geoff, Roy Thomas Baker, etc.) started shaping the sound from the git-go, making hundreds of decisions by the time it came to mix. That’s the way, sonically, great records were made. Even today I have to have an equalizer and a compressor after a stand alone pre-amp, otherwise I couldn’t live with myself. He also points out that we should encourage musicianship, “talent in the artists and players.” Production is not only about comping 25 takes, it’s about coaching the artist with useful feedback and respect. He also reminds us that great guitarists like Jeff Beck and Mick Ronson knew how to get great guitar sounds by themselves. Congratulations Joe and Ken on a very informative interview.
Yours, Tony Visconti


Recently your publication has left my world completely and gone somewhere else. Your covers and themes are objectionable to me: glossy, ugly pictures, shaved headed dudes sitting in Cadillacs [Positively Pogue, November 2006] by the waves, columns called “Letters from fight fans” [sic] (I am not a “fight fan” so that is objectionable to me as well), where you call the writer an ass and the rest of the content no longer serves my professional needs. Cease sending me your rag! I prefer grown up material for my professional eeducation [sic]. I will never read you [sic] rag again.
Thanks, Lou Judson


A few issues back, an EQ subscriber wrote a letter criticizing EQ for writing about common equipment and techniques that everyone knows about. Well, I want to thank you for writing about common equipment and techniques that everyone knows about, because now I also know about it. That’s why I subscribed to your magazine. And that’s why I will continue to subscribe to your magazine. Thank you for being so informative.

I am a drummer who is trying to learn everything about sound engineering and the music industry. I’ve purchased a few books on the subjects, but the higher learning comes from magazines and the professionals who write for these magazines.

Thank you very much, for everything.
Sincerely, Robert Hartwick
Collegeville, PA


Great interview with Ken Scott. Best I’ve read in forever.
Eddie Ciletti


To EQ magazine & Gary Garritan:

I enjoyed your article “From MIDI-Mockup to Real Orchestra” [November 2005, EQ]. It was fun to read about musicians getting their first taste of orchestrating for a live symphony. There is, however, one point of fact that I feel should be addressed — the point about bow length and the duration of phrases.

The article states, “Few know that at any dynamic level, basses can play a longer slurred passage than violins. The reason is simply that the bow is longer and the player can therefore spend more time before changing bow direction and thus breaking the slur.”

In fact, the opposite is true. Violin bows are 74–75cm long, cello bows are 72–73cm, and my French-style bass bows are 70.5cm long. (The length varies depending on the type of bow used. German bows have a longer screw cap making them seem longer, but the length of the hair is similar.)

It is rare for string players to play long phrases in a single bow. They just make it seem so. In fact, the sizes of the instruments and the lengths (or the weight) of the sticks have nothing to do with phrase length or dynamics. Good players are capable of playing phrases of any duration and dynamic. They utilize techniques such as silent bow changes (where the player employs a “figure 8” type motion to scrape the hair sideways on the string to mask the change of bow direction), and free bow changes (where members of the section change bow direction at different times rather than simultaneously) to simulate long phrases.

In the hands of a good player, you would not be cognizant of bow changes unless the player wanted you to (for aesthetic reasons). An irrelevant but amusing point is that, if you made a bass bow’s length in the same proportion to the instrument’s size as a violin, the bass bow would probably be several feet long and as thick as a log.

Obviously, a stick that size would be impractical, even though it might look interesting. And where would you find hair that long? Thank you for an enjoyable and enlightening article.
Mark Gruen
Enterprise Musical Arts & Sciences
Bethesda, MD


I stopped subscribing to EQ magazine THREE years ago for two reasons:

First, the magazine’s reader-useful editorial policies had slipped. Most of the content of the magazine had deteriorated to the point that it was more useful to the advertiser than to its professional audio readership. The lack of any reader’s letters to the editor and the loss of columns like Roger Nichol’, Al Kooper’s “Microphile” and “Bedroom Warriors” meant that most of the text of the magazine was left to product reviews. Those product reviews were basically useless to any audio professional because they were ALL “raves.” It seemed that in EQ’s opinion, every product was “the latest and greatest.”

How can someone make a valid purchasing decision when all products introduced are great?

If all products are great, then all products are the same. To make matters worse for the buyer, many reviews did not get into the most important point of all — a detailed description of how the product sounded.

The second reason I let my subscription lapse was the fact that EQ ceaselessly and mercilessly sold my name to junkmailers. Due to a deliberate misspelling in my name, I know that the original source for this mailing was the EQ subscription list. Since I have not received your magazine for years, I am not receiving any compensation in return for the annoyance caused when I receive mailings from people who have bought my name from you. No, I do not wish to receive the magazine again for the reasons I listed above. Just cease all distribution of that information to other parties. Thank you in advance for your complete co-operation in this matter.
Chris Gately
Ardmore, PA

Editor’s Note: Will do on the junkmail. In regards to your other points, wellllll, it’s been awhile hasn’t it? We’ve revived the letters column with a vengeance and EQ’s reviews THESE days are all about actual opinion. Not only that, all of our reviewers, studio pros, young turks, Grammy winners, and up-and-comers alike, are usually done in the midst of real sessions that are all about SOUND, at the very least. So you might want to come back in about now. The water’s just fine.


I am writing a book called How to Waste Time and Lose Money. Would you care to write a brief forward for it?

I don’t intend to put a lot of effort into this book because I am lazy. Most of the book will probably be blank.
Happy holidays, JC

Editor’s Note: Write it?!?! We’re willing to LIVE it! Thanks for asking.


Your comparison of the Edirol R1 and a Sony MD [December 2005, EQ] misses the point entirely. You make mention of uploading from the MD, but you fail to tell readers that doing so is a fucking DISASTER. Don’t you read the forums about Sonic Stage? Do your homework, buddy, before you start presenting yourself as a “professional” journalist. You’re a fucking idiot.
Doug McNichol

Craig Anderton responds: EQ is a magazine for recording professionals. I use MD primarily for field recording of audio that is later synced up with video tracks, but also for “flying in” long samples for live performance.

I recorded material on the MD and had no trouble transferring it to my hard drive. The material was not protected originally, nor did Sound Stage add any protection, and it can be freely duplicated.

The MD had been previously used by the editor of EQ who recorded his band’s rehearsal. He inadvertently left the disc in the player. I transferred the contents to my computer and burned a CD from it, again without incident.

I have had no disasters. I can report only what I experience. As to problems that people have trying to download music, or rip CDs, or copy MP3s recorded to the MD, or whatever, that’s not what EQ is about nor is that its intended audience.

I am also not sure that you have read the manual, which as I recall, makes it very clear what material is limited by copying and what material isn’t. Unfortunately I cannot quote you the sections of the manual that relate to this, as I had to return the unit to the magazine when the review was finished.

I consider spending about a month with a unit, trying it under multiple conditions and on multiple computers, with multiple examples of source material, as “doing my homework.” Although I suppose it would save time, and be much easier, just to read comments off websites and reproduce those as fact.

I am going to buy an MD Pro as soon as I can to augment the MD I bought in 1998, which has served me well both for videos and on stage, on two continents.

And FWIW, in the spirit of equal time, I have been extremely vocal in my opposition of the Sony/BMG copy protection malware, which I consider an insult to the CD-buying public.


I’d really love to blast (with all due respect) Eddie Kramer for hating MP3 audio files (“K is for Kramer,” January 2006), when he loves DVD audio. DVD audio is a 320kbs MP3 file.

He’s also got to stop using the Jimi Hendrix crutch. . . . You’re only as good as your last record, not Best-Of box set or reissue.

Now that that is off my chest. . . .

I love EQ magazine. It’s starting to overshadow Mix as a must read every month. Good Job!
Steve Wytas


I look to you for facts.

Perhaps a bit of insight.

I find it appalling that you would get the facts wrong on Jimi (“K is for Kramer,” January 2006).

It was Albert King, one of Jimi’s masters, who actually played a right-handed guitar left-handed. That was because it was the only guitar his uncle had and they didn’t have any money for new strings.

Jimi, on the other hand, took a right-handed guitar and strung it for a left-handed player. (Big E on top and little E on the bottom). Because of the staggered bridge pick-up, his little E string came across the pick-up in a different place than it would on a properly strung right-handed guitar. That is the source for some of his unique sounds on the Stratocaster. Oh, it also wasn’t a super-dee-duper Fender Custom Shop strat either, it was a piece of shit strat like all of us regular guys play.

You should really get your facts straight before you print. It is that kind of bullshit, half-assed reporting that turned Jimi into a heroin addict junky to the majority of mindless sheep out there.
John Scott

In reference to the interview with Eddie Kramer, Jimi Hendrix DID NOT “string his guitar like a right-handed version, with the high E on top” as reported by Craig Anderton. Hendrix strung his guitar in the “usual” fashion with the low E string on top, high E at the bottom. (I’m really surprised someone who has been around as long as Mr. Anderton would make such an egregious error. I mean, c’mon, all you’d have to do is look at a close-up shot of Jimi playing.) Perhaps Craig was thinking of another legendary southpaw, Albert King, who did string his guitar thinnest strings at top, then to bottom. [In addition, Doyle Bramhall II also uses this unorthodox stringing method.]

But other than that, I think this was the best EQ in a long time, with some pointed and accurate comments on “the biz” as it exists today. And I can relate strongly to Nate Kunkel’s “Do The Don’ts” list! This is coming from someone who showers, then goes on the treadmill.
Dan Buxbaum
N. Merrick, NY

GREAT article on Eddie Kramer. I knew who he was, but not nearly to what extent he had influenced the music I listen to! Had I known, I might have dropped and bowed before him!

I also noticed that while EQ has gotten slimmer . . . this issue was full of great jewels! No fluff, just quality writing.
Dendy Jarrett

Craig made a whopper on page 26, last paragraph. Hendrix sure DIDN’T string his guitar like a righty — he strung it with high E pointing toward his toes, according to Guitar Player. If that weren’t enough, just look at any picture or video, especially Jimi Hendrix Live at Woodstock.

I thought everyone knew this by now.
Thank you
Joe Cesare

Editor’s Note:While we’d like to stick to the journalistic tried and true of not apologizing, not explaining or not deigning to place the blame on somebody, anybody else (blaming your drinking is a close second), Craig felt compelled to defend his integrity (he’s the only one around here with any of THAT stuff) and so here you go. “Sorry, this was due to my misunderstanding something Eddie Kramer had said during the course of our interview. I specifically asked Eddie about Jimi’s stringing thing with the high E on top, and he said yes, that’s the way it was. But I think he didn’t hear my question correctly so I’m not going to lay it on him. And hey, I did send him the piece for fact-checking. How about this as a correction though? In the Eddie Kramer interview, the article stated incorrectly that Jimi Hendrix played a right-handed guitar left-handed. He in fact took a right-handed guitar and strung it for a left-handed player.”

Just finished reading November.

I’ve also read Tape Op.

Both are good.

Different styles. EQ is definitely more fun. So from the individual who equates fun with frivolity, you are probably getting the “no content” jab. But for those of us who wish to be entertained while informed . . . well, that speaks for itself.

And I like the letters from the Editor. Yes, sometimes I have to begin a passage back from the front, because, it can be a little, um, Yoda-like, the message, you see. But fun is what it makes for us that read the letter. And abstract art is the art I like, and boring writing, that you can read while feeding the dog, is just that . . . boring . . . no matter how informative.
Pete Kelly
Chapel Hill, NC