In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 11 Jul 2005 00:53:12 GMT, Jenn wrote:

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung

wrote:

I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came
out,
and
it
was
a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC,
and
my
friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could
not
get
over
the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD
right
then,
and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or
the
vinyl
LP
version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind.

That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is
less of
an
issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree?

Interesting that you respond only to Chung's note, rather than
the
anecdote he's responding to.

Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously thought the digital chain
sounded
more
like the *band playing live at the same time* than the Studer.

1. Does this band really record while all playing at the same
time?
If so, they are the exception to common practice.

WHo says all the band were listening? I presume it was just
Nichols
and
Fagan. Remember, they were listening for which chain sounded more
like a
band playing live..

But if the band never played the recording live in the studio....

They did however play the songs *many* times on tour, so one must
suppose that they knew what sounded most like a live performance.

Please believe that this isn't intended as a "flame", but I must say
that this part of the discussion has taken a tract that I find simply
astonishing! People on your "side" of this issue often speak of the
need to carefully adjust for output volume, test blindly, etc. in order
to get a valid listening test. I understand this desire. But then you
are using, as a point of debate here about Nichols, Fagan, et al
preferring the digital sound for the recording under discussion, a
recording for which the "original sound" never existed (i.e. the
musicians never played all together in the studio)!

You know this with such certainlyu *how*?

Meaning, you know this for sure, in direct contradiction to what Nichols,
who was there, recounts...how?

The presumption is that they didn't make the recording with all players
and singers performing at once because that is the way it is/was usually
done. Did Nichols say otherwise?


Meaning, you *don't* know. Thanks.

I also *don't* know that the sun will raise tomorrow, but based on
previous experience, I'm willing to bet that it will.


Now I have a question: Has Nichols said that a band's worth of performers
was never gathered in a studio when SD recorded? Because I have read
otherwise.

Besides, do you *seriously* imagine* that if Roger Nichols and Donald Fagan
wanted a band to play in the studio , for the purpose of
comparing that sound to the sound of the Studer and the new digital recorder,
they couldn't arrange for that to occur?

Of course they could. What's the point? If they were comparing the
sound of the studio to the sound of the tape and the recorder, ALL I'm
saying is that the chances of such a comparison to the sound of the band
playing and singing in that room live are pretty slim, as it probably
never happened in the first place!


This presumption that he simply *could not* have had a band play a song
live
in the studio -- just because Steely Dan, like many acts since the 70's,
tended not to release 'live in the studio' recordings -- is absurd.
SD could and did have a band's worth of
musicians on hand; doubtless they could have them rehearse,
set down guide versions, warm up together...or play on request so
Nichols could compare his two rigs. No reason to believe Fagan
did things differently as a solo act.

But again, there are many presumptions there. "A band's worth of
musicians on hand"? "Rehearse"? "Warm up"?

The idea that these are outrageously unlikely occurences, when a SD/Fagan
album was being recorded circa 1983, is the far more absurd presumption here.

No it isn't based on how pop records are made. Perhaps these people
record differently that the vast majority of the rest of the industry.

All I am saying is that you
folks argue in favor of matched level listening down to a couple of dB,
etc to make legit listening comparisons, then you also argue about the
listening comparison of a recording of an event that probably never
actually took place live! It seems like a contradiction to me.

There is no contradiction, there is only a fantastic presumption on
your part, which you seem to stick to merely to prop up your prejudice.

That THAT speaks directly to my point! Again, perhaps I am wrong and I
missed something in the previous posts on this, but what I gathered was
that a poster makes a point of stating that Fagan et al like the sound
of CD based on those sessions in question, when there probably WAS no
original event to compare the live sound to the recording. I found this
an interesting contrast when you are so careful to match levels aon so
forth very carefully when doing component listening tests, given that
the differences are so very VERY great between those two standards, I
think that this shows YOUR prejudice!

Your presumption of what is 'probable' is contradicted *directly*
by the testimony of the recording engineer himself,

If the engineer said that the whole band played and sung on the session,
I'm sorry; I didn't catch that, and in Saturday Night Live fashion I
will say..."Never mind!" :-)

as well as by
common studio practice. The final recording is never the entire
picture of a series of recording sessions. An obsessively overdubbed
final product is not sufficient logical grounds to assert that musicians
'probably never' played together in the studio during the sessions....


Again, I'm going by common practice in pop music. It's a logical
deduction for that reason.

or that they 'probably never' were even *there* all at the same time.

I don't believe that I said that.

So if Roger Nichols claims he had a
band play in the studio -- particularly in the course of recounting an
equipment comparison trial -- there's no
sensible reason to assert that he 'probably' didn't. His comparison
method *is* certainly open to rational critique, but you've
picked the weakest, most irrational of legs to stand on.