------------------------------ Loopers-Delight-d Digest Volume 97 : Issue 81 Today's Topics: Re: Klein Electric Guitar [ Paolo Valladolid ] Re: Has anyone received a backordere [ Arthur Gatesy ] Delivery Report [ To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: Klein Electric Guitar Message-Id: <199706060114.SAA19722@waynesworld.ucsd.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Kim, I recall you mentioning Lorenzo (of Steve Klein Guitars) being reluctant to install a Sustainiac circuit on a Klein. Was it just too much trouble because of the guitar design (can't find a place for the circuit board, etc.)? Paolo Valladolid --------------------------------------------------------------- |Moderator of Digital Guitar Digest, an Internet mailing list |\ |for Music Technology and Stringed Instruments | \ ---------------------------------------------------------------- | \ finger pvallado@waynesworld.ucsd.edu for more info \ | \ http://waynesworld.ucsd.edu/DigitalGuitar/home.html \| ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 18:12:42 -0700 From: mgsam@wave.net To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: Dork has more to say Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" You wrote: > >Do yourself a favor, and forget new tubes. Most modern Chinese and >Russian tubes are *junk*. I just replaced a blown vintage Mullard >EL34 in my stereo with a Groove Tubes EL34. The difference in >manufacturing quality and sonics shocked me. The GT (a Chinese EL34) >glows cherry red at the limits of its capabilities in this amp, while >the 35 year old Mullards show no color at all, except for a tiny bit >of gas in one. > >So, retube with good quality NOS (new old stock) vintage tubes. Try >Steve at Angela Instruments (www.angela.com), an excellent >straightforward guy. His web site has prices and descriptions for a >wide variety of NOS tubes. The new Svetlana EL-34s are excellent. Much better then the old Sovtek's or anything Chinese, and I like them better then the East German tubes I've jused. In fact, they are in the same sonic ballpark as my old Mullards. Longevity remains a question since I've only been using them a couple of months, but so far so good. Best, Kevin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 11:30:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Kim Corbet To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com cc: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: Klein Electric Guitar Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >>>Strummed acoustically it is > >>>quite loud, like a 335. The resonance chamber does that for you. > >Well, I'm hardly an expert on guitar design, but as I understand, resonant > >chambers can add a lot of sustain and harmonic content. I think that's > I thought: > The chamber probably absorbs some energy from the cord and thus diminuishes > sustain. The loud acoustic sound confirms that. The sound energy you hear > is taken from the string and the more you take the quicker it is without, > which means less sustain. ......well, it seems to me "acoustics" differs from this point of view. the string vibrates...the chambers resonate. It's the amplification properties of the chambers themselves that create the sustain. Take an acoustic guitar without the huge box and you haven't got much. Play any hollowbody guitar vs. solid body...play through any good quality speaker cabinet and then through a speaker sitting on the workbench and you start to appreciate what "chambers" can do. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 11:02:28 -0700 From: mgsam@wave.net To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: Zoom 508 delay vs. Steinway pianos vs. Klein guitars Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thank you TW Hartnett and Kevin Simpson for your provocative replies; we love good feedback. Gathering our loop adled thoughts, we must first apologize for the typos in the previous post. Second, we bring up the example of the proverbial five year old, because we have found that on stage with an audience staring us in the face, we have the intellectual and emotional resources available to the average five year old. Furthermore, we find that this isn't unusual for live musicians. Granted we have not administered a round of Piaget developmental tests to hundreds of musicians...but you get our point...live means stress, stress means a reduced ability to cope with awkwardly designed, poorly layed out equipment. Stress on stage can mean tears, fist pounding, and a pronounced inability to read, let alone find directions. Sounds like a five year old, doesn't it? On the other hand, both posters underestimate the acuity of your average five year old in non-stress situation. Ever seen one whip out something in Kid pix on a Mac or a Windows pc with a mouse? They get technology real fast when it's well designed. We do regret the price point comparison that our post inevitably brought up. No, a Klein guitar and a Steinway aren't in the same price range as a Zoom 508 (duh), but we were thinking about the resources available to the designers of these critters. When Henry Steinway and his boys built the ultimate piano, they had several years of experience building more conventional "box" piano in Germany and the feedback from players and builders. They listened and thought about their tradition and the musical ends. Interestingly, it's reported that Henry was losing his hearing and part of the reason the Steinways created the then radical soundboard was the need to make the piano loud enough so he could hear the notes being played in a 19th century concert hall. At the same time, one of his sons had become interested in the new science of acoustics developing in Germany. (Incidentally, T.W., far from being a "simple analogue device," a Steinway has several thousand parts. It's the INTERFACE that's simple and intuitive, not the instrument itself.) But back to the point...there were indeed centuries of experience and feedback from musicians and builders that finally contributed to this seminal design, but it was a family that paid close attention to the needs of players and their audience who got it right. There were also happy accidents that just don't seem to happen much in the corporate world, unless the corporation is really working on finding those accidents (like 3M with Post-its). As for Steve Klein. The guitars that bear his name are built in a barn...literally. The impetus for his ergonomic design came after years of thinking about the guitar and player's needs. It was also the marriage with Ned Steinbergers innovative and brilliant tuning system that created the beast. Again, two individuals obsessed with good design, the player's needs, and paying attention. Now, how much money do you think the people at ZOOM have to spend on product development as compared to a 19th century immigrant family living in New York in the 1850s, or a single offbeat and brilliant designer and guitar builder living in California? We would dare speculate that Zoom has much more in the way of resources and cold hard cash. And we don't see any contradiction in profit and good design. If the product is intuitive and easy to use, it should sell MORE and open up a bigger market. But excuse our cynicism, we think the impetus behind the Zoom 508 is the need to roll over the product line before the next Namm show. Unlike Klein and Steinway they have new models every year...and isn't it amazing that with all that practice they just can't quite seem to get it right! Could they be in the business of musical consumerism instead of the business of musical instrument making? ;) We don't think the people that put the Zoom 508 out have ever looped onstage live, or talked much to musicians who have. We think they think about margins, inventory, volume and product placement. They could be selling electric shavers just as easily as so called musical devices. And we are stunned that given the prior fifty years of recording that Zoom and others of their ilk can't make their machines more intuitive. And really, at four seconds of delay and with a lousy interface, plus you gotta pay extra for the pedal, is this thing REALLY a bargain? Will it help the musician make music or turn him off because of the limitations? Would a musician do better to save his pennies and spend the $550 bucks at Sam Ash to get a hold of the Oberheim? (And as we mentioned before, we have our gripes about our Echoplex too, but it's a thoughtful and sometimes brilliant effort at creating a musical instrument, and not must an offering to the alters of guitar consumerism). In summation, we don't care whether the technology behind a musical instrument is analogue or digital. We don't care about price points. The LoOpDoctOrs want to make live music and we want the best tools available, so spare us worrying about the suits at Zoom and their parituclar corporate/technological constraints. At the $100 price point you can find Casio watches and car stereo units that are just as complex in their menu driven choices as the Zoom 508 but much more intuitively designed, and yes, a child can figure these things out very quickly indeed. Finally we would love it if the folks at Zoom would study the evolution of the Steinway piano and the Klein guitar and then think, real hard, about how it might apply to their products. (hee hee, can't you just see the Zoom guys showing up for their tour of the Steinway factory of the Klein barn?) Better yet, think about the human body, the human mind, the human ear and the human hand and what they need need to make music. And you don't have to just go to analogue instrument makers for instruction either...how about some of the hipper software designers out there? As far as next year's model for next year's Namm show...Zoom, do your interface homework and skip the show. ;) Best, The LoOpDoctOrs ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 14:55:32 -0400 From: To: "INTERNET:Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com" Subject: Delivery Report Message-ID: <199706051455_MC2-17B8-BD0E@compuserve.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Non-Delivery Report: To: Administrator at CSERVE Subject: RE: Bob's steroidal JamMan implant Report Generation Time: 06/05/97 18:55:02 (GMT+00:00) Transfer Failed: Recipient Name Unrecognized ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 13:08:36 +0100 From: pycraft@elec.gla.ac.uk (Dr M. P. Hughes) To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: RE: Bob's steroidal JamMan implant Message-Id: <8258.199706051208@rank-serv.elec.gla.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Bob: >The A-D converter (input) on JamMan is mono while the D-A (output) >converter is stereo so all loops are recorded in mono. This surprises me - why were stereo DACs included when only one is used? Was this upgrade planned, or is it because the JamMan shares gubbins with mono-in /stereo out processors? >> You also said the Vortex >> design team weren't planning a MIDI upgrade for this most essential >> piece of kit. Can they be persuaded...? > >It's pretty unlikely but I'll keep you posted. I think there's probably some demand 'round these parts..... Michael Dr Michael Pycraft Hughes Bioelectronic Research Centre, Rankine Bldg, Tel: (+44) 141 330 5979 University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, U.K. "Wha's like us? Damn few, and they're a' deid!" - Scottish proverb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 16:30:54 -0400 From: To: "INTERNET:Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com" Subject: Delivery Report Message-ID: <199706051631_MC2-17A9-6929@compuserve.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Non-Delivery Report: To: Administrator at CSERVE Subject: Re: Looping in London Report Generation Time: 06/05/97 20:30:24 (GMT+00:00) Transfer Failed: Recipient Name Unrecognized ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:50:48 +0100 From: pycraft@elec.gla.ac.uk (Dr M. P. Hughes) To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: Zoom 508 delay vs. Steinway pianos vs. Klein guitars Message-Id: <26056.199706060850@rank-serv.elec.gla.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The Doctors have made the point that a Zoom box is far less intuitive to use out of the box than a Klein or Steinway (do pianos come in boxes?). However, I'd make 2 points about that - 1. These instruments abe both largely acoustic, ie sound generators. You hit something, it makes a noise. The kid could be playing Cage in minutes. :) With the Zoom, they'd need to know what to do with the instrument first, then once it's plugged in I'm sure they'd find something cool in the echo FX even without the looper going. 2. Whilst the "ease of use" is fine for piano or guitar, I'd hazard a guess that left with something from the Brass section (sax, trumpet, tuba) they'd be left making farting noises for days. Does this mean brass instruments are badly designed, or merely that they require a degree of skill in order to use? This counts for bowed strings too. Finally, you say that kids should save the extra for an EDP. Over here that's about $600 up in price, and quite honestly I couldn't justify spending that much on a looper myself. Zoom fill a market need for cheap'n'cheerful, if mediocre, processors. And I'll bet the Zoom outsells the EDP, JM and Rang by bucketloads... Michael Dr Michael Pycraft Hughes Bioelectronic Research Centre, Rankine Bldg, Tel: (+44) 141 330 5979 University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, U.K. "Wha's like us? Damn few, and they're a' deid!" - Scottish proverb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 18:15:28 -0400 (EDT) From: MiqSk8@aol.com To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: questions for one and all Message-ID: <970605181439_372875049@emout20.mail.aol.com> has anyone here on the list seen the david torn instructional videos? i'm still pretty new at looping but have a fairly firm grasp on signal processing; would these be of worth ($69+) to me? what do they cover, and are they more theory based or just the "look what cool sound i get out of this cool box" type thing? on to more real loopy stuff... has anyone here ever seen the Joni Mitchell concert video Shadows and Light? Her band at the time was michael brecker, don elias, lyle mays, pat metheny, and the monster known as jaco pastorious. jaco's solo takes advantage of the lexicon(judging by the blue on the box) delay to build a quick loop to blow over. it's really cool, grooving(of course), and jaco just has the technology dialed in. warning:this solo does not appear on the cd! sorry to bring up the zoom 508 again, but... if you were to pony up for the expression pedal to go with it, what parameters are controlable by it? feedback, delay level, delay time? is it's output true stereo? could delays be panable? i have for a while been considering two parallel signal chains fed by a panning pedal allowing me to mix (or ultimately choose one of) two considerably different sounds on the fly-kind of the poor man's morphing, only not so processor dependent/intensive. btw, has any heard the zoom 507 reverb pedal as well? and now for the big kahuna- what is it that all of us are trying to achieve by looping? i'm really interested in the sounds coming out of this group. Atmospheres? Textures? "Sound Carpets"? Precision Pointillism? Industrial Indigestion? or more of the compositional types of multiple loops created on the fly and then swapped between? in other words a way to build traditional sections of composition to be arranged. i realize this predates the looper's cd, but i think it would be cool for us to get an idea of what's going on with all this equipment and talent and ... personally i'm still struggling with all the abilities of the 'plex and the timing of using next loop-so i'm concentrating more on the single loop. it's amazing how varied the result can be by taking different approaches (chordal, linear, heavy, ethereal, synchronized, chaos). i am constantly just letting it go onto tape. (i'm spending all weekend in the california mountains to go through them all!) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 10:41:50 +0100 From: pycraft@elec.gla.ac.uk (Dr M. P. Hughes) To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: Klein Electric Guitar Message-Id: <27285.199706060941@rank-serv.elec.gla.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >>>Strummed acoustically it is >> >>>quite loud, like a 335. The resonance chamber does that for you. > >> >Well, I'm hardly an expert on guitar design, but as I understand, resonant >> >chambers can add a lot of sustain and harmonic content. I think that's > >> I thought: >> The chamber probably absorbs some energy from the cord and thus diminuishes >> sustain. The loud acoustic sound confirms that. The sound energy you hear >> is taken from the string and the more you take the quicker it is without, >> which means less sustain. > >......well, it seems to me "acoustics" differs from this point of view. >the string vibrates...the chambers resonate. It's the amplification >properties of the chambers themselves that create the sustain. Take an >acoustic guitar without the huge box and you haven't got much. Play any >hollowbody guitar vs. solid body...play through any good quality speaker >cabinet and then through a speaker sitting on the workbench and you start >to appreciate what "chambers" can do. Dammit, this has got me thinking (oh, no, not again)! The reason an acoustic shifts air is that the bridge moves the top up'n'down due to string vibration. So some inergy is lost, although the guitar top effectively becomes part of the system (ie you're strumming the strings _and_ the top), and your initial pick strike will move the top. There will be a loss of energy due to the moving bridge, but it shouldn't be any more significant than the loss due to bridge movement on trem and non-trem guitars. OK there's an observable difference but we're still talking approximately the same sustain, not guitar-vs-banjo. The term "resonance" probably isn't very accurate - whilst chambers do have resonances, these are at specific frequencies - like the famous footage of Tacoma Bridge finding its resonance frequency!! Acoustic volume is entirely down to how much air you're shifting. If you take a solid gtr, the acoustic sound comes purely from the string since there's nowhere near enough energy to vibrate the 2"-thick body to any degree. In an acoustic, the string/top system vibrates the top, and the volume is equal to the total space enclosed by the top in its "extended" and "retracted" positions (ie the ends of its oscilation). This is the case for, say, an Ovation. For regular acoustics, you also couple the _back_ of the guitar into the system. The top moves forward, drops the pressure in the body, and "suck" the back of the body with it. This causes the back of the guitar to vibrate introducing another large sound-making area and increasing loudness. The shifted air from the exterior of the guitar's top disperses from all over the top (and is quiet) whilst the change of pressure inside the chamber has only one place to act through - the soundhole. The delay for sound travelling between top and back eill cause resonances - ie there will be frequencies where top and back will be "in plase" and summing their volumes, others where ther will be phase cancellation. Since the back's contribution will be smaller (due to losses in the body) this won't result in volume changes, but will "colour" the sound. I would guess that the frequency of these in vnversely proportinal to the depth of the guitar (ie sound gets deepwe ith increasing distance - ie wavelenght increases) Also, the acoustic coupling is more "spread out" through the chamber (think reverb) giving rise to more resonances and a richer sound. "Resonances" occur everywhere - the top, chamber, back etc occur everywhere which is why acoustic guitars are perceived to sound more "alive"; however they aren't why chambered guitars are louder - it's why they sound better. Acoustic volume is derived from the same source (the efficiency of the board) but not through resonances. To summarise, the volume of an acoustic is lastly louder, and the sustain only slightly lower, because the string is coupled into a single vibrating system with the top which is a very efficient way of moving air. IMHO...! Michael Dr Michael Pycraft Hughes Bioelectronic Research Centre, Rankine Bldg, Tel: (+44) 141 330 5979 University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, U.K. "Wha's like us? Damn few, and they're a' deid!" - Scottish proverb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 11:15:10 -0700 From: Kim Flint To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: fun with retriggering and anti-guitar diatribes Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi everyone- Last night I was amusing myself with a loop technique that I though I'd share with the group. But first, a mini diatribe about guitars and their owners! I've played guitar since I was 7. It wasn't even my idea, my parents just signed me up for the lessons. It's ok, I enjoy playing, so I forgive them for that. But I guess being around the damn thing for so long has driven me to boredom. Talking about guitars has gotten dull. Listening to guitar music has gotten very dull. And my playing of the guitar is frequently hitting periods of indifference. I guess that's what leads me in more exotic directions both in listening and creating. But everywhere I go: guitar, guitar, guitar. Yawn, yawn, yawn. Why is it that when a few guitar players are around, that's all they talk about? I'm pretty guilty myself, but it's always kind of self-conscious. I'm thinking, if I'm bored, that poor theremin player in the corner must be dying! So anyway, the point is, I'm going to spend more of my limited time here talking about looping, and less about guitars. [Don't take this as "list-owner exerting power" or anything. All you other guitar players feel free to talk about it all you like here. If it's important to your music, it's relevent. Censorship ain't my thing.] Now, Looping! I was playing with retriggering loops. I like this effect, probably because I heard hip-hoppers doing it at a young age or something. I like making the little stuttering sounds. This time, however, I did something a little different. I had recorded a rhythmic sort of loop, 4 bars of 4/4 I think. There were some overdubs, so it was a reasonably full sounding loop, but not very dense. So then I started retriggering it. (mute-insert on the plex. Each insert then retriggers again) For some reason I let it play longer than usual before retriggering, and realized I had just thrown a 3/4 bar into my groove. Cool! I proceeded to go nuts with time signatures, by retriggering my loop at different points in the rhythm, and continuing to do it to get a new groove. Performing with the retrigger actually! I found that I could easily convert my 4/4 groove to 3/4, 5/4, 7/4, 7/8, whatever. Each one had an interesting new character of it's own. Some ideas I had were: (each of these are one pass, and should be repeated to get a groove) Retr - beat - Retr - beat - beat 5/4 Retr - beat - beat - beat - beat 5/4 Retr - beat - Retr - beat - Retr - beat - beat 7/4 Retr - beat - beat - Retr - beat - beat - beat different 7/4 well, you get the idea. Different initial loop content resulted in different sorts of new rhthyms. Each one developed all sorts of new characters as the time signature was dynamically changed. anyway, gotta go. have fun! kim ______________________________________________________________________ Kim Flint | Looper's Delight kflint@annihilist.com | http://www.annihilist.com/loop/loop.html http://www.annihilist.com/ | Loopers-Delight-request@annihilist.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 10:36:57 -0700 From: Arthur Gatesy To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Cc: amg@cds9373.Cadence.COM Subject: Re: Has anyone received a backordered Plex yet? Message-Id: <199706061736.KAA22898@cds9373.Cadence.COM> > Hello fellow loopers, > > Just wondering if any of you who have had an Echoplex on back order, > actually received it yet? I know according to kim and Oberheim's customer > service (Dean Fouts) they are being shipped out but I haven't heard of > anybody getting one yet. > > Ed I received my Echoplex yesterday, which I ordered back in March or April. It was definitely worth the wait! -Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 13:55:47 -0400 From: To: "INTERNET:Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com" Subject: Delivery Report Message-ID: <199706061356_MC2-17A9-3CF6@compuserve.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Non-Delivery Report: To: Administrator at CSERVE Subject: Re: Dork has more to say Report Generation Time: 06/06/97 17:55:17 (GMT+00:00) Transfer Failed: Recipient Name Unrecognized ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 13:55:48 -0400 From: To: "INTERNET:Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com" Subject: Delivery Report Message-ID: <199706061356_MC2-17A9-3CF7@compuserve.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Non-Delivery Report: To: Administrator at CSERVE Subject: Re: Dork has more to say Report Generation Time: 06/06/97 17:55:17 (GMT+00:00) Transfer Failed: Recipient Name Unrecognized ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 14:36:31 -0400 From: To: "INTERNET:Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com" Subject: Delivery Report Message-ID: <199706061436_MC2-17B8-C2FA@compuserve.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Non-Delivery Report: To: Administrator at CSERVE Subject: Re: Klein Electric Guitar Report Generation Time: 06/06/97 18:36:28 (GMT+00:00) Transfer Failed: Recipient Name Unrecognized ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 14:32:50 -0400 From: To: "INTERNET:Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com" Subject: Delivery Report Message-ID: <199706061433_MC2-17B8-545@compuserve.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Non-Delivery Report: To: Administrator at CSERVE Subject: Delivery Report Report Generation Time: 06/06/97 18:32:18 (GMT+00:00) Transfer Failed: Recipient Name Unrecognized ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 12:06:14 -0700 From: Sean Echevarria To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com Subject: Re: Delivery Report Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970606120614.009f6100@pure.pureatria.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Is everybody getting these or just me? >Non-Delivery Report: To: Administrator at CSERVE > Subject: Delivery Report > Report Generation Time: 06/06/97 18:32:18 (GMT+00:00) > Transfer Failed: Recipient Name Unrecognized > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 14:33:28 -0400 From: To: "INTERNET:Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com" Subject: Delivery Report Message-ID: <199706061433_MC2-17A9-3D4E@compuserve.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Non-Delivery Report: To: Administrator at CSERVE Subject: Re: Zoom 508 delay vs. Steinway pianos vs. Klein guitars Report Generation Time: 06/06/97 18:33:22 (GMT+00:00) Transfer Failed: Recipient Name Unrecognized --------------------------------