Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#401
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ): On 2/16/2011 1:06 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote (in ): snip Since I don't have any knowledge about "orchestras accompanying groups", I obviously wasn't talking about that kind of concert. That was kind of the point. You seem to want to lump everything but classical or jazz into "non-live" music. That just isn't the case. I was talking about the type I've seen depicted that show rock groups on stage with fireworks, and lots of microphones and PA speakers, I was in Rome a number of years ago at the Roman Forum one Sunday afternoon. Paul McCartney was giving a concert at the Colosseum and there were huge scaffolds with speakers on them lining the street for more than half a mile. Even though I wasn't at the concert (I was touring the Forum and the Palatine) I could hear the entire concert - it was uncomfortably loud - even that far away. They must have a million Watts of amplifier power. Nobody heard that concert un-amplified. Well, the first problem here is why would you would listen to McCartney ;-) Believe me, It wasn't my idea. I happened to be in Rome, near the Colosseum while the concert was being performed. I'll say one thing positive about it. I had the entire Forum and Palatine Hill area all to myself! There wasn't another tourist in sight. Even over by the Circus Maximus site, I could still hear it and it was still loud! But point taken. Fireworks and the like (as with the Halloween like affectations) don't usually accompany acoustic concerts IME. Perhaps you should change your description to "acoustic" music. Because it's hard to dispute that musicians playing instruments right there in front of you is not "live". But what the audience hears is NOT the actual instruments playing, it's a facsimile of the performance picked up by microphones, electronically amplified and EQ'd, and heard via loudspeakers. Have you ever walked down the street and passed an open doorway to a night spot and heard a small band playing inside? Without even entering the establishment, or even seeing inside, just hearing the music wafting through the open door, something tells you "That's live music playing in there!" Well, yes I have. Most of the time, those small bands have been playing amplified music. Not in my experience. I can tell amplified from real every time. And when it's amplified, only the loudness tells me that it's a small ensemble playing in that night club, (rather than a jukebox) not the sound. Nothing can reproduce that sound. Were it the best stereo system in the world in that club, you wouldn't be fooled into thinking it was real, live music playing and The finest PA equipment isn't even THAT good! Of course not. But that holds true for any type of music, acoustic, amplified, or otherwise. Of course it does, but that doesn't alter the fact that some of us attend live concerts to hear real music played in a real space. If I want to listen to amplifiers and speakers, I'll save myself the time, effort and money and merely stay home in the comfort of my listening room and listen to recordings. It will certainly sound better! Say's far more about the limits of the illusion created by stereo in a home setting than it does about acoustic versus amplified music IMO. I don't agree. I won't attend a concert or other "live performance where sound reinforcement is being employed. Most of the time It's simply not needed (for the type of music I listen to - and I don't care about the rest) and all it does is make the club uncomfortably LOUD because people have to talk louder to be heard over the music so the band turns up it's volume, making people talk even more loudly, and soon it spirals into bedlam. But, clearly there's a broad gray line between what constitutes a 'concert' versus a 'performance event' where the music merely accompanies the visual spectacle. Usually, when the folks on stage are dressed in Halloween costumes, it's the latter :-) 'Course, that's just my opinion. Well, these bands are certainly a "performance event" and the musicians are certainly playing their instruments "live", it's just that the audience isn't hearing the direct, live sound of those instruments, but rather, as I said earlier, a technically augmented facsimile thereof. So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without looking in, and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for example, you personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live or playing through a PA system? First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were playing I would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of solid-body electric guitars such as used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost without meaning because by definition, electric guitars are playing through a "PA system" they're ELECTRIC guitars! |
#402
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Feb 18, 6:30=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message On Feb 16, 5:20=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message On Feb 15, 5:31=3D3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head at least eight of various sizes go off at once) to sounding very unreal. =3D3DA0Using the SACD version. =3D3DA0And the culprit....the preamp. =3D3DA0 Audio Research SP6B vs. Onkyo P301. =3D3DA0So much for big-box store electronics. I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I can move it in my listening room and list=3D3D en to it chime, if I want the true live experience. Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and speakers that are well-configured for the room. The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any claims that close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is brought into question by the hi=3D3D gh end audiophile comments on this thread.- Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the mic positions for the recording of the clocks on DSOTM? No experienced recording engineer would need such a thing to reach the conclusion that I've provided. Hmmm. That may very well be true. But the fact is *you* reached completely eroneous conclusions. Only in your opinion. =A0Now, you're overreaching your position and prete= nding to be a cosmic authority. No Arny not in my opinion. You see (or maybe you don't) DSOTM is a very popular album and there actually is a great deal of fact based inofrmation on how it was recorded out there for anyone to read up on or even watch on DVD. Your eroneous conclusions are not a matter of opinion. They are a matter of varifiable fact. Just because you didn't do your homework on the subject of how DSOTM was recorded doesn't mean it is a mystery to all and subject purely to opinion. one does not need to be a cosmic authority just basically educated on the subject. Clearly I am and you are not. Perhaps you should steer clear of Dark Side of the Moon as a reference. Perhaps you should remember that you don't rule the universe. Proof by assertion is no proof at all. If you've got evidence, then offer it. If y= ou have something to say but OSAF , I'm sure we'd be all glad to hear it fro= m you. I see no point in trying to "prove" things that are well documented and easily accessed by anyone willing to do their homework. What next? Will you ask me to "prove" Pink Floyd was an actual band? One does not have to rule the universe to catch you making gross errors in fact on this subjeect Arny. One just needs to know a litle bit about what actually went into the making of DSOTM. If you've miced different instruments in different rooms different ways, =3D a recording paints a fairly detailed sonic picture of how the recording was miced. If you've worked the room, then mic locations can be estimated fai=3D rly well. What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead. =3DA0It is co=3D mmon to mic close and add the sonic perspective electronically during the mix. Done right, this can fool most listeners. And so based on the false assumption that the clocks were recorded in an acoustically dead studio room with your experienced ears as a recording engineer you concluded that the clocks were recorded in a dead studio room and were close miced. No such thing! Wow, wow, Arny, really? You really wanted to post this? Abby Road Studios dude! Were talking specifically about Abby Road studios. http://www.abbeyroad.com/studios/studio1/ "Studio One is the world?s largest purpose-built recording studio. The space can easily accommodate a 110-piece orchestra and 100-piece choir simultaneously. Studio One?s acoustic is as famous as the location, offering a supremely warm and clear sound, perfect for numerous types of recording, from solo piano to large orchestras and film scores. The live area also has two spacious isolation booths. A Steinway D concert grand and a celeste are also available The size of Studio One also makes it a very attractive venue for live music events." So what does thing mean Arny? according to you "only a person who has never been in a real world recording studio and has no clue about how recording is done in studios could make these claims.(The recording spaces are hardly dead there (abbt Road Studios)) does this mean that the people at Abby Road studios making claims about the acoustics of their own studio have in fact never been inside their own studio? Could it mean that at Abby Road studio when you record an orchestra you do so in a dead acoustic envirement? So what next? demands that I prove that Studio One at Abby Road Studio is actually an acoustically reverberant studio? You should have quit when you were just way behind Arny. Yikes. Arny, the album was recorded at Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dead there. Scott, only a person who has never been in a real world recording studio = and has no clue about how recording is done in studios could make these claim= s. Including some very lively spaces Arny. Something you think only a person who has never been in an actual recording studio would claim.As you point out Abby Road Studios has many differnt rooms but your claim was that "What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." So 1. what was actually well known but apparently not to you was that DSOTM was mostly recored in *Abby Road Studios* and you claim the rooms are generally, with *few* exceptions acoustically dead. Clearly studio 1 is anything but dead. but lets look at the other studios to see just how generally dead with "few"exceptions the studios at Abby Road really are. http://www.abbeyroad.com/studios/studio2/ "Studio Two is probably the most famous studio in the world. It has a unique design, acoustic and an unparalleled history of recording. The studio can comfortably accommodate up to 55 musicians for film scores and overdubs, as well as providing the perfect tracking room for bands. Available with the studio are a variety of upright pianos and a Steinway Model D concert grand." definitely not dead. You are 0 for 2 http://www.abbeyroad.com/studios/studio3/ "Studio ThreeStudio Three is an incredibly versatile facility with a history of pioneering projects including Pink Floyd?s ?Wish You Were Here? and some of the very first 5.1 surround mixes for the Beatles Anthology, U2 and Coldplay. The recording space was designed to have a natural and flexible acoustic," 0 for 3 ooh ouch. That's it. Once again you should have done your homework. None of the sudio spaces at abby Road are actually dead spaces. None. What did I say? Oh yeah " Yikes. Arny, the album was recorded at Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dead there. And what did you say? oh yeah "Scott, only a person who has never been in a real world recording studio and has no clue about how recording is done in studios could make these claims." Ooooooooops. Recording studios the size of Abbey Road are composed of multiple highly dissimilar rooms. The spaces in a real-world recording studio vary all over the map, and th= ey can be modified at will for a given tracking session using portable sound proofing panels or ad hoc sound absorbing materials such as shipping blankets. Arny give it up. We are talking about DSOTM which was recorded mostly at Abby Road Studios. You apparently didn't even know that was where DSOTM was recorded. The spaces clearly are anything but dead despite your claims based on your apparent listening skills as a recordist. ooooooops. again Studio three's description says it all: "The recording space was designed= to have a natural and flexible acoustic, with multiple isolation booths." = =A0Hmm, what do they do with the isolation booths? I'll bet they record in them! = ;-) It would appear that you have just now learned about studios having dedicated isolation *booths* so you are betting on yet another uniformed guess. But we weren't talking about isolation booths Arny *You* made statements about studios. That being "What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." Clearly the three studios at Abby Road Studios where the recording was mostly made are anything but dead. Now you discovered they have isolation booths and you present that as an out for your gross misrepresentation of the sudios at Abby Road. Are you sure the isolation booths are acoustically dead at Abby Road Studios? are you sure the one youi cited even existed when DSOTM was recorded? So Arny? Is that a bet you want to take in regards to DSOTM? When I asked you for photos of the mic configuration way back in regards to the recording of the clocks you said Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and speakers that are well-configured for the room. The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any claims that close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is brought into question by the hi=3D3D gh end audiophile comments on this thread." when asked if you had any pictures you said "No experienced recording engineer would need such a thing to reach the conclusion that I've provided." now combine that with these quotes (all quotes here are from above) "If you've miced different instruments in different rooms different ways, =3D a recording paints a fairly detailed sonic picture of how the recording was miced. If you've worked the room, then mic locations can be estimated fai=3D rly well. What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead" we essentially have you claiming that by your expertise as a recordist you were able to listen to DSOTM and determine that the clocks were were recorded with a close mic in a dead studio room when in fact they were recorded individually at various clock shops. so do you really want to make any bets as to how any of the other elements on DSOTM were recorded Arny? Don't you want to do your homwowrk first? You have gotten everything so terribly wrong so far. and apparently, according to you, based on your experience as a recordist. Maybe, just maybe recording your church group in a highschool auditorium did not really inform you about how major studio multitrack recordings such as DSOTM were done back in the day. Scott, in contrast to =A0your apparent claim there isn't just one studio = at Abbey Road. There are three major studios whose size and basic layout and construction varies considerably, and at least one very small one. Where did I say Abby Road Studios "has just one studio?" I didn't. If you are going to build an argument based on something I allegedly said at least quote me in context so we can know you are getting my claims right. I do that for you. It is called Abby Road studios (plural) Here is what I said from above "Yikes. Arny, the album was recorded at Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dead there." Arny, "spaces" is a plural of space. Plural meaning more than one. Furthermore there is considerable evidence that the acoustics of these ro= oms is modified to suit for each recording session and also for different instruments in the same recording session. We have a clear record that th= ere are many isolation booths which are typically very dead little rooms. show me the evidence that this was done with the recording of DSOTM. That is what we are talking about. You said you can determine these things due to your expertise as a recordist. Clearly your alleged expertise as failed you and you have made many gross errors in fact in regards to the recording of DSOTM. So please show me some evidence that supports your assertions that the sessions were recorded in acoiustically dead studios. We know the studios at Abby Road are anything but dead. Those spaces would be pretty hard to make acouscally dead. show that they did so in recording DSOTM. Good luck. here is a hint. It didn't happen. Also, there are inherent variations in the acoustics of a given room base= d on how many musicans are working at any particular time. Move 210 musican= s into a room the size of Studio One or 55 into Studio Two, and its acousti= cs change dramatically from the same room when it is nearly empty. =A0Both configurations can make sense depending on what outcome is desired. That's nice but your claim was " What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead. =3DA0It is co=3D mmon to mic close and add the sonic perspective electronically during the mix. Note that the page for the "Penthouse" =A0mentions the following: Are you sure The Penthouse even existed when they recorded DSOTM? Might want to check on these things when discussing the recording of DSOTM at Abby Road Studios. Oooooooooooops.=A0 =A0 Without detailed documentation of each recording session you have no idea what actually happened. What happened to this claim of yours from above when I asked for such documentation? " No experienced recording engineer would need such a thing to reach the conclusion that I've provided." ooops again. Feel free to argue with yourself as much as you want. LOL Of course Scott in your apparent state of ignorance, inexperience and wit= h an overwhelming desire for a rush to judgement, you show zero awareness o= f any of the practical exingencies of working in a real world recording studio. Funny that this ignorant guy is the one cleaning up all your gross errors of fact in regards to the recording of DSOTM. Call me ignorant all you like Arny. The proof of who is actually educated on the subject should be pretty clear for anyone with the endurance to read this thread. Kind of funny that we have this interesting article from one Jon Atkinson on this recording. http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/" since I recorded an album at Abbey Road Studio at the same time that the Floyd were there making DSotM, I always thought the album did an excellent job of preserving the characteristic sound of the studio with which I had become so familiar. Yet when I first listened to the CD layer of the reissue, it didn't sound like Abbey Road at all. The sonic subtleties that identify the recording venue and its unique reverb chamber had been eliminated or smoothed over. They were there on the SACD, so some investigation was called for." Scott you just skewered yourself. If all of the spaces at Abbey Road were= so reverberent, why did they need to add artifical reverb from a reverb cham= ber to some of the recordings? First off the *echo chamber* (never heard of a reverb chamber) doesn't add "artificial" reverb. It's real reverb from an actual existing chamber. I would think one as so knowledgable on all things recording would know this basic fact. secondly you might want to actually give DSOTM an actual listen to gain a basic understanding of the actual use of the echo chamber in the recording of DSOTM. You might then understand how asking the question shows gross ignorance of the recording in question. Maybe if you were a regular reader of Stereophile you wouldn't have made so many gross errors of fact in regards to the recording. And yet you conclusions direactly above based on your expertise as a recordist was "DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." =A0 =A0 ooops...... No oops. Real world experience. Now you are arguing with yourself again Arny. quote from above " Without detailed documentation of each recording session you have no idea what actually happened." Oh and by the way....The clocks weren't recorded in the studio. They were recorded in various clock shops individually. Do you know of any clock shops that are acoustically dead? Any store or workshop can be quite acoustically dead when the machines an= d the displays break up the spaces and add diffusion and absorbtion. But you concluded that they were recorded in an acoustically dead studio space. Please show me an example of a clock shop being made acoustically dead. better yet show that this is what Alan Parsons actually did. Compare and contrast a car dealership =A0with a fabric store. One is usua= lly highly reverberent with tile floors and a lot of glass, while the other o= ne is usually very dead for pretty obvious reasons - all those bolts of fabr= ic add a lot of absorbtion and some diffusion. You've never noticed this when you visit stores and workshops, Scott? =A0= Your ears must be turned off when you go out into the real world. I certainly do notice it when I visit fabric shops. Never when visiting clock shops in London. The walls are covered in clocks. Not sound absorbing fabric. Again let's look at your assertions as quoted from above. "Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely =A0possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and speakers that are well-configured for the room." "What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." " No experienced recording engineer would need such a thing (a photo of the mic configuration from the actual recording session) to reach the conclusion that I've provided." I'll stick by my statements, Scott. You go right ahead and do so. Your gun, your foot. =A0You've just treated us to an exposition of your lack of awareness of what you hear when you visit the same places= we all go to every day. =A0You seem to have just conflated a large complex l= ike Abbey Road into just one room, and then claimed that its acoustics are always the same when we have photographic evidence and experiential evide= nce that the acoustics of those rooms can vary all over the map. Please quote me in context before representing my positions from here on out. You got all of the above completely wrong. It's getting old. I thought you worked in the motion picture business, Scott. Haven't you noticed that making motion pictures involves recording sound as well as moving pictures and stills? No Arny, Never noticed. Granted a lot of those guys are now old friends of mine but I never noticed them recording sound. All those times they called roll sound I just didn't notice. weird no? =A0Ever take a look at how they do that? =A0How many recording spaces are at the studios you work for? How many absorbtive panels? How many isolation booths? How many gobos? LOL none Arny. There are no isolation booths on a film set nor are there any absorbtive panels. clearly you haven't been on an actual working film set. ooooooooops Now if you want to talk about the space in which they actually score the music, i frequently visited that during my seven years on Star Trek Voyager. No isloations booths used in that either Arny. But at least you learned about the existance of isolation booths when yo visited the Abby Road Studios webpage. |
#403
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
In article ,
Audio Empire writes: On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:26:23 -0800, David E. Bath wrote (in article ): In article , Audio Empire writes: On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:14:35 -0800, David E. Bath wrote (in article ): In article , Audio Empire writes: On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:16 -0800, David E. Bath wrote (in article ): In article , Audio Empire writes: On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:21:22 -0800, ScottW wrote (in article ): Nor does it happen in theory. The recording of digital music is just copying bits. There is nothing passed from a source to a recording except the bits. There may be some "noise" in the system along the way but as long as that noise doesn't change the value of a bit...it's irrelevant and won't get passed along to the next stage. There is no cumulative effect and it's very common to be able create bit identical recreations of massive data files....digital music is no different. So you're saying that there is no circumstance under which background noise can get so high that it makes detection of the digital data difficult? Tell that to people who deal in digital communications. I was a fiber optic engineer for over 20 years and in the digital RF field now. The noise issue is handled in the exact same manner as in CDs and DVDs - error correction. So unless the signal level is so very weak that the error correction cannot correct all errors, which in the case of digital communications is extremely weak, these is no loss if data. "So unless the signal level is so very weak that the error correction cannot correct all errors..." My only point. Thank you Mr. Bath. But you missed my point when I used "extremely" vs. your "very". Errors are always fully corrected unless the signal is subsumed by the noise, a condition that nvers happens except in RF applications when the signal is either blocked or the distance between the source and the destination is far beyond the design parameters. In the case of CDs and DVDs it won't happen unless the player/reader is broken, or the disc is severely damaged. First of all I don't recall using the word "very" in the part of my post that you quoted. Secondly, my point was that digital can be theoretically serially copied forever, or until some situation arises whereby noise so swamps the data that it's unrecoverable which I also said almost never happens. So what are we arguing about, the word "almost"? Give it up! True, you did not use "very", I did, but I requalified with "extremely" but you chose to ignore that requalification to suit your purpose in trying to use my statement to "prove" yours. Well I was refuting your statement not agreeing with it. The copying of digtial data to and from CDs and DVDs will always be completely error free unless a defective device or defective disc is used. Period. You're still nit-picking and flogging a deceased equine. I have no more to say on the subject, and I'm going stop now before I say what I REALLY think and get myself kicked off this forum. The reason for my statements was to make it clear to others reading this thread that digital copying is noise free, contrary to what you stated. I wouldn't want anyone who didn't understand how digital audio and the copying of it actually works to be confused. Your statements earlier in the thread on 14 Feb 2011 in Message ID were very misleading: "In reality, of course, the added noise with each generation is THERE, it's just that the noise is analog and the system is looking for ones and zeros." There is never added noise in any generation of digital copying, the digital data is regenerated with each copy and no analog noise remains. -- David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator |
#404
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote (in ): On 2/16/2011 1:06 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote (in ): snip So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without looking in, and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for example, you personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live or playing through a PA system? First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were playing I would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of solid-body electric guitars such as used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost without meaning because by definition, electric guitars are playing through a "PA system" they're ELECTRIC guitars! You seem to be purposely misconstruing the context. The whole point is, *if* you can tell that an amplified band is "live", and not a recording, then there is far more to "live" than you seem to want to admit. So, do you claim that were you to walk, albeit quickly, past that cafe with *live* electric guitars playing, you could not distinguish them from a *recording* of same playing through a PA system? If the answer is "no" then I have to question your claimed acuity. If the answer is "yes", then perforce "live" amplified music is *LIVE* and readily distinguishable from a recording. In the latter case, clearly there would then be a role for *any* music to be used as a reference for comparison of "live" versus "recorded". Keith |
#405
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:11:53 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ): On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote (in ): On 2/16/2011 1:06 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote (in ): snip So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without looking in, and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for example, you personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live or playing through a PA system? First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were playing I would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of solid-body electric guitars such as used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost without meaning because by definition, electric guitars are playing through a "PA system" they're ELECTRIC guitars! You seem to be purposely misconstruing the context. The whole point is, *if* you can tell that an amplified band is "live", and not a recording, then there is far more to "live" than you seem to want to admit. Sure there is, but in a rock concert situation (my original premise) non of that "live" makes it to the audience's ears. They are listening to speakers, period. I only brought-up walking past a small club to illustrate that there is something palpable about the sound of live, un-amplified music that is lost the moment mixing boards, PA amplifiers, and sound reinforcement loudspeakers come into the equation. This is especially true in a large concert venue. Direct sound from the instruments is simply not a factor. The inability of current electrionics and transducer technology to convey that palpable sound of "live" is why hi-fi falls short of the mark, and why many people still seek out live, un-amplified music. There is simply, nothing like it. So, do you claim that were you to walk, albeit quickly, past that cafe with *live* electric guitars playing, you could not distinguish them from a *recording* of same playing through a PA system? That's a little difficult to say. Usually in a small club or cafe, there is really no need for any sound reinforcement other than the guitar amplifiers needed to make the guitar audible at all and probably a PA system for the vocals (if any), but the drum kit wouldn't need it (I shouldn't think), nor would any wind instruments (like a sax or trumpet). If there was an electronic keyboard of some type, then it too would need an instrument amplifier/speaker just like the guitars. Certainly the un-amplified drum-kit or the sound of live brass instruments would be instantly recognizable as live music in such a venue because no PA system can move that much air, quickly enough to fool the ear. If the answer is "no" then I have to question your claimed acuity. If the answer is "yes", then perforce "live" amplified music is *LIVE* and readily distinguishable from a recording. Not necessarily. See above. In the latter case, clearly there would then be a role for *any* music to be used as a reference for comparison of "live" versus "recorded". Well, if one accepts your premise... I don't necessarily do so. |
#406
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
"KH" wrote in message
On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote (in ): On 2/16/2011 1:06 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote (in ): snip So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without looking in, and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for example, you personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live or playing through a PA system? First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were playing I would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of solid-body electric guitars such as used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost without meaning because by definition, electric guitars are playing through a "PA system" they're ELECTRIC guitars! I guess that AE is unaware that there are such things as acoustic guitars with pretty much the same pickup coils that are used on solid body guitars. They are a practical alternative to simply micing the acoustic guitar. They are a partial solution to potential problems with acoustic feedback that come with the mic. The solid bodies are a practical refinement over just putting pickups on acoustic guitars. Their major sonic advantage being a reduced tendency towards acoustic feedback (a mixed blessing), a different tone, and of course there is the shipping/handling advantage of the durability of a solid block of wood. One of the things to remember that a great deal of the characteristic sound of an acoustic guitar comes from the sounding board which is just an acoustic impedance matching device and a resonator. In principle there is no reason why these functions can't be done well electronically. Also, I see some pretty biased perceptions. I would never say that the musican's choice of musical instrument necessarily eliminates my ability to enjoy good music and good musicianship. I like music and musicians too much for that kind of bias to rule my life. You seem to be purposely misconstruing the context. The whole point is, *if* you can tell that an amplified band is "live", and not a recording, then there is far more to "live" than you seem to want to admit. So, do you claim that were you to walk, albeit quickly, past that cafe with *live* electric guitars playing, you could not distinguish them from a *recording* of same playing through a PA system? I've definately experienced situations where I played recordings based on close-micing and direct-box pickups in a large room and fooled people outside and just entering the room into thinking that a live performance was going on inside. The empty stage is a dead give-away and ends the blindness of the test. ;-) In another situation I played a digital recording of the output of an expensive digital organ, and again casual listeners were fooled at least a little while. If the answer is "no" then I have to question your claimed acuity. If the answer is "yes", then perforce "live" amplified music is *LIVE* and readily distinguishable from a recording. In the latter case, clearly there would then be a role for *any* music to be used as a reference for comparison of "live" versus "recorded". In modern times there is often a lack of hard distinctions between electronic and non-electronic performances. One only need to consider the digital bottom rank of the Ruffati organ in San Francisco's Davies Symphony Hall. Would this drive AE out of the room? ;-) |
#407
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Feb 19, 10:22=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:11:53 -0800, KH wrote (in article ): On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote (in ): On 2/16/2011 1:06 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote (in ): snip So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without looking in, and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for example, you personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live or playing through= a PA system? First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were playin= g I would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of solid-body electr= ic guitars such as used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost without meaning because by definition, electric guitars are playing through a = "PA system" they're ELECTRIC guitars! You seem to be purposely misconstruing the context. =A0The whole point = is, *if* you can tell that an amplified band is "live", and not a recording= , then there is far more to "live" than you seem to want to admit. Sure there is, but in a rock concert situation (my original premise) non = of that "live" makes it to the audience's ears. They are listening to speake= rs, period. I only brought-up walking past a small club to illustrate that th= ere is something palpable about the sound of live, un-amplified music that is lost the moment mixing boards, PA amplifiers, and sound reinforcement loudspeakers come into the equation. This is especially true in a large concert venue. Direct sound from the instruments is simply not a factor. = The inability of current electrionics and transducer technology to convey tha= t palpable sound of "live" is why hi-fi falls short of the mark, and why ma= ny people still seek out live, un-amplified music. There is simply, nothing = like it. Not really fair to compare high end home audio to PA systems for large venues. Pretty tough fitting 100,000 people into the sweet spot no? |
#408
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:07:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "KH" wrote in message On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote (in ): On 2/16/2011 1:06 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote (in ): snip So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without looking in, and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for example, you personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live or playing through a PA system? First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were playing I would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of solid-body electric guitars such as used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost without meaning because by definition, electric guitars are playing through a "PA system" they're ELECTRIC guitars! I guess that AE is unaware that there are such things as acoustic guitars with pretty much the same pickup coils that are used on solid body guitars. Don't be absurd, of course I know that. I also know that acoustic guitars with electric pickups on them don't sound like solid-body rock guitars. They are a practical alternative to simply micing the acoustic guitar. They are a partial solution to potential problems with acoustic feedback that come with the mic. Again, with the irrelevant pendanticisms. The solid bodies are a practical refinement over just putting pickups on acoustic guitars. Their major sonic advantage being a reduced tendency towards acoustic feedback (a mixed blessing), a different tone, and of course there is the shipping/handling advantage of the durability of a solid block of wood. And the most horrible sound a human being can make and still call music! I'd rather listen to cats fighting over an inflated bagpipe! One of the things to remember that a great deal of the characteristic sound of an acoustic guitar comes from the sounding board which is just an acoustic impedance matching device and a resonator. In principle there is no reason why these functions can't be done well electronically. Then why do acoustic guitars sound so marvelous and electric guitars sound so ugly? Also, I see some pretty biased perceptions. I would never say that the musican's choice of musical instrument necessarily eliminates my ability to enjoy good music and good musicianship. I like music and musicians too much for that kind of bias to rule my life. So you would listen to a ptoomer fart as long as he was farting a good song? Some sounds are just gross, and the talent of the musician or the quality of the music won't make an ugly sound beautiful! Nothing can make a solid body electric guitar sound anything but gross (IMHO). You seem to be purposely misconstruing the context. The whole point is, *if* you can tell that an amplified band is "live", and not a recording, then there is far more to "live" than you seem to want to admit. So, do you claim that were you to walk, albeit quickly, past that cafe with *live* electric guitars playing, you could not distinguish them from a *recording* of same playing through a PA system? I've definately experienced situations where I played recordings based on close-micing and direct-box pickups in a large room and fooled people outside and just entering the room into thinking that a live performance was going on inside. The empty stage is a dead give-away and ends the blindness of the test. ;-) In another situation I played a digital recording of the output of an expensive digital organ, and again casual listeners were fooled at least a little while. If the answer is "no" then I have to question your claimed acuity. If the answer is "yes", then perforce "live" amplified music is *LIVE* and readily distinguishable from a recording. In the latter case, clearly there would then be a role for *any* music to be used as a reference for comparison of "live" versus "recorded". In modern times there is often a lack of hard distinctions between electronic and non-electronic performances. One only need to consider the digital bottom rank of the Ruffati organ in San Francisco's Davies Symphony Hall. Would this drive AE out of the room? ;-) Of course not. I didn't say that electronic sounds couldn't be musical. I recently recorded a jazz ensemble where the main instrument was an electronic marimba/xylophone. When I tell people listening to the recording that it's an electronic instrument, they don't believe me and insist that it's a real acoustic instrument. Ditto when some electronic pianos - especially when the direct sound from the instrument amplifier/speaker captured via the overall stereo microphione is mixed with the direct electronic signal from the instrument itself, directly into the mixer |
#409
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
"Scott" wrote in message
Not really fair to compare high end home audio to PA systems for large venues. Pretty tough fitting 100,000 people into the sweet spot no? With many home stereos it is no harder to fit 100,000 people into the sweet spot as it is to fit 5. Both are mission impossible. |
#410
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:07:24 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Feb 19, 10:22=A0am, Audio Empire wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:11:53 -0800, KH wrote (in article ): On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote (in ): So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without looking in, and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for example, you personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live or playing through a PA system? First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were playing I would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of solid-body electric guitars such as used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost without meaning because by definition, electric guitars are playing through a "PA system" they're ELECTRIC guitars! You seem to be purposely misconstruing the context. The whole point is, *if* you can tell that an amplified band is "live", and not a recording, then there is far more to "live" than you seem to want to admit. Sure there is, but in a rock concert situation (my original premise) non of that "live" makes it to the audience's ears. They are listening to speakers, period. I only brought-up walking past a small club to illustrate that there is something palpable about the sound of live, un-amplified music that is lost the moment mixing boards, PA amplifiers, and sound reinforcement loudspeakers come into the equation. This is especially true in a large concert venue. Direct sound from the instruments is simply not a factor. The inability of current electrionics and transducer technology to convey that palpable sound of "live" is why hi-fi falls short of the mark, and why many people still seek out live, un-amplified music. There is simply, nothing like it. Not really fair to compare high end home audio to PA systems for large venues. Pretty tough fitting 100,000 people into the sweet spot no? Probably not. But what does that have to do with the difference between live direct sound from instruments being played in real time and space and a concert heard via a sound reinforcement system? |
#411
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Feb 20, 6:12=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:07:24 -0800, Scott wrote (in article ): On Feb 19, 10:22=3DA0am, Audio Empire wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:11:53 -0800, KH wrote (in article ): On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote (in ): So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without looking in, and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for example, you personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live or playing through a PA system? First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were playing I would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of solid-body electric guitars such as used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost without meaning because by definition, electric guitars are playing through a "PA system" they're ELECTRIC guitars! You seem to be purposely misconstruing the context. The whole point is, *if* you can tell that an amplified band is "live", and not a recording, then there is far more to "live" than you seem to want to admit. Sure there is, but in a rock concert situation (my original premise) non of that "live" makes it to the audience's ears. They are listening to speakers, period. I only brought-up walking past a small club to illustrate that there is something palpable about the sound of live, un-amplified music that is lost the moment mixing boards, PA amplifiers, and sound reinforcement loudspeakers come into the equation. This is especially true in a large concert venue. Direct sound from the instruments is simply not a factor. The inability of current electrionics and transducer technology to convey that palpable sound of "live" is why hi-fi falls short of the mark, and why many people still seek out live, un-amplified music. There is simply, nothing like it. Not really fair to compare high end home audio to PA systems for large venues. Pretty tough fitting 100,000 people into the sweet spot no? Probably not. But what does that have to do with the difference between l= ive direct sound from instruments being played in real time and space and a concert heard via a sound reinforcement system?- You tell me. You made the connection. " This is especially true in a large concert venue. Direct sound from the instruments is simply not a factor. The inability of current electrionics and transducer technology to convey that palpable sound of "live" is why hi-fi falls short of the mark," You cited crap PA systems as the reason why "hi- fii falls short of the mark." But hi-fi/ high end home audio is far far better and comes much closer to sounding like live acoustic music when the source material is right than any PA system such as the ones you are discussing. IME good hi-fi has a lot more in common with live acoustic music than it does with any PA system at any concert. So I don't think you can point to PA systems as evidence of the failures of hi-fi. Ever been to a classical concert at The Hollywood Bowl? That is crap live sound because of the PA system. Now the sound of my system playing back a great LP of orchestral music sounds an awful lot like the real thing and it sounds really wonderful. and yet the Bowl still sells tickets ata premium for classical music. There is another reason. If hi-fi were perfect there would still be a great deal missing compared to live music. I seek out live music even when it sounds better at home on the hi-fi.That is why I will go to a classical concert even at The Bowl. In fact I am planning to do so August 2nd if I am in town. As bad as the sound at the bowl is for classical music the tickets fetch a premium and the shows sell very well. It isn't just sound that gets people to classical concerts. The failings of PA systems are not an indictment of hi-fi. If anything they are proof that there are reasons other than great sound why people go to concerts. |
#412
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:51:23 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Feb 20, 6:12=A0am, Audio Empire wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:07:24 -0800, Scott wrote (in article ): On Feb 19, 10:22=3DA0am, Audio Empire wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:11:53 -0800, KH wrote (in article ): On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote (in ): So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without looking in, and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for example, you personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live or playing through a PA system? First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were playing I would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of solid-body electric guitars such as used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost without meaning because by definition, electric guitars are playing through a "PA system" they're ELECTRIC guitars! You seem to be purposely misconstruing the context. The whole point is, *if* you can tell that an amplified band is "live", and not a recording, then there is far more to "live" than you seem to want to admit. Sure there is, but in a rock concert situation (my original premise) non of that "live" makes it to the audience's ears. They are listening to speakers, period. I only brought-up walking past a small club to illustrate that there is something palpable about the sound of live, un-amplified music that is lost the moment mixing boards, PA amplifiers, and sound reinforcement loudspeakers come into the equation. This is especially true in a large concert venue. Direct sound from the instruments is simply not a factor. The inability of current electrionics and transducer technology to convey that palpable sound of "live" is why hi-fi falls short of the mark, and why many people still seek out live, un-amplified music. There is simply, nothing like it. Not really fair to compare high end home audio to PA systems for large venues. Pretty tough fitting 100,000 people into the sweet spot no? Probably not. But what does that have to do with the difference between l= ive direct sound from instruments being played in real time and space and a concert heard via a sound reinforcement system?- You tell me. You made the connection. " This is especially true in a large concert venue. Direct sound from the instruments is simply not a factor. The inability of current electrionics and transducer technology to convey that palpable sound of "live" is why hi-fi falls short of the mark," But I wasn't actually comparing the two. It merely stated that electronics and speakers between the listener and the musical source, whether in a concert, or via a recording at home, robs the sound of that essential "liveness" that tells the ear the difference between live music and canned or technically "augmented". You cited crap PA systems as the reason why "hi- fii falls short of the mark." But hi-fi/ high end home audio is far far better and comes much closer to sounding like live acoustic music when the source material is right than any PA system such as the ones you are discussing. No argument there. I agree completely, but even so, a good stereo still falls short of that "palpability" we're discussing. IME good hi-fi has a lot more in common with live acoustic music than it does with any PA system at any concert. So I don't think you can point to PA systems as evidence of the failures of hi-fi. Of course, I can't speak for you, but I hear live music several times a week because I record it that often and no hi-fi I've ever heard, regardless of price or quality has ever fooled me. Ever been to a classical concert at The Hollywood Bowl? That is crap live sound because of the PA system. I agree that it would be. Yet when the HB was first opened, it didn't use sound reinforcement and in fact, the first time I went there (middle 'sixties) they still didn't use it. I was a long way from the orchestra shell and I could hear the orchestra fine because of the shape of the acoustic shell. I am, however more familiar with the shell on the barge at the Watergate in Washington DC (at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial, tied up in the river. I understand it's gone now). It didn't use sound reinforcement either and many thousands would attend those concerts on summer nights and could hear just fine. Rock concerts NEED sound reinforcement in large venues because the instruments are largely electric and need amplification. but most classical concerts don't. - especially large symphony orchestras. Many use it anyway, and I think that's a crime! Now the sound of my system playing back a great LP of orchestral music sounds an awful lot like the real thing and it sounds really wonderful.\ Good for you. I wish I could say that. No hi-fi system has ever fooled me - even for a second. Some have come close to giving a glimpse of real music, but it's that pesky "palpability" thing again. Occasionally, with more intimate musical performances like a jazz quartet, well recorded (usually by me), one or another instrument will sound almost startlingly realistic for a few seconds, but the spell is soon broken. and yet the Bowl still sells tickets ata premium for classical music. If I knew that the "Bowl" was using sound reinforcement before I went, They would never sell a ticket to me. If I'm going to be forced to listen to speakers, I'd rather listen to speakers of my own choosing. IOW, I'd rather stay home and listen to recordings of the works on the program than spend the money to listen to lousy PA speakers. There is another reason. If hi-fi were perfect there would still be a great deal missing compared to live music. I seek out live music even when it sounds better at home on the hi-fi.That is why I will go to a classical concert even at The Bowl. In fact I am planning to do so August 2nd if I am in town. As bad as the sound at the bowl is for classical music the tickets fetch a premium and the shows sell very well. It isn't just sound that gets people to classical concerts. The failings of PA systems are not an indictment of hi-fi. I never meant that it should be. If anything they are proof that there are reasons other than great sound why people go to concerts. Perhaps there are. Certainly most rock concerts MUST use sound reinforcement for several reasons, not the least of which is that their performances don't normally exist outside of the recording studio. Therefore the bands must carry all of the tools available at a recording studio with them so that they can recreate that sound on stage. OTOH, the type of music I listen to doesn't need either the sound-level augmentation or the sonic manipulation afforded by the use of a PA system, and in fact, is not, in any way, shape, or form served by being relayed to the audience via sound reinforcement, at least not in my opinion nor to my tastes. |
#413
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On 2/20/2011 5:45 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:07:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in ): wrote in message On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote (in ): On 2/16/2011 1:06 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote (in ): snip So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without looking in, and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for example, you personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live or playing through a PA system? First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were playing I would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of solid-body electric guitars such as used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost without meaning because by definition, electric guitars are playing through a "PA system" they're ELECTRIC guitars! Well, first of all I thought it would be clear that "PA system" was not the same as "amplified" or "reinforced" music as was being discussed. Let me clarify - amplified music *Live* versus *recorded* music played through a "PA" system. Personally, I have no problem distinguishing between the two in the Cafe situation posited - one sounds like live players, one does not. Secondly, your hatred for electric guitars is irrelevant to the discussion, and to your (and others) insistence that only "live acoustic" music can possibly be used as a "reference" for realism in reproduction. If *live* electric guitars - or whatever - are readily distinguishable from a recording of same, then clearly they can be used as a reference for *realism*. Obviously amplified instruments may not have the same sound from implementation to implementation, but as you readily admit, the almost always present non-amplified instruments (e.g. drums) combine to create a performance that is easily distinguishable from a recording, even were you correct about the deficiency of the amplified ones. It's also rather a stretch to make the claim that any music you find intolerable, and thus with which you have little, or no experience, cannot sound "live", and cannot therefore provide a reference against which reproduction accuracy can be compared. snip In modern times there is often a lack of hard distinctions between electronic and non-electronic performances. One only need to consider the digital bottom rank of the Ruffati organ in San Francisco's Davies Symphony Hall. Would this drive AE out of the room? ;-) Of course not. I didn't say that electronic sounds couldn't be musical. I recently recorded a jazz ensemble where the main instrument was an electronic marimba/xylophone. When I tell people listening to the recording that it's an electronic instrument, they don't believe me and insist that it's a real acoustic instrument. Ditto when some electronic pianos - especially when the direct sound from the instrument amplifier/speaker captured via the overall stereo microphione is mixed with the direct electronic signal from the instrument itself, directly into the mixer So, you recorded a "dead" jazz ensemble? Couldn't be "live" by your definition. See the issue? Keith |
#414
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:50:18 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ): On 2/20/2011 5:45 AM, Audio Empire wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:07:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in ): wrote in message On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote (in ): On 2/16/2011 1:06 PM, Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote (in ): snip So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without looking in, and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for example, you personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live or playing through a PA system? First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were playing I would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of solid-body electric guitars such as used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost without meaning because by definition, electric guitars are playing through a "PA system" they're ELECTRIC guitars! Well, first of all I thought it would be clear that "PA system" was not the same as "amplified" or "reinforced" music as was being discussed. Let me clarify - amplified music *Live* versus *recorded* music played through a "PA" system. Personally, I have no problem distinguishing between the two in the Cafe situation posited - one sounds like live players, one does not. Exactly! Secondly, your hatred for electric guitars is irrelevant to the discussion, True enough, except as a point of departure for the discussion, my musical tastes have no relevance at all. and to your (and others) insistence that only "live acoustic" music can possibly be used as a "reference" for realism in reproduction. If *live* electric guitars - or whatever - are readily distinguishable from a recording of same, then clearly they can be used as a reference for *realism*. I don't agree that electric guitars are readily distinguishable from a recording of same, and even if it were possible, the fact that electric guitars can either be fed directly into the mixing console in the recording studio or picked up from their on-stage speakers via microphones, means that there's no real way for the listener to tell which is which showing that electric guitars can sound very different depending upon how they are picked-up. And I do believe that live, acoustic music is the only music that can be used as a reference and for several reasons, not the least of which I just mentioned above. Obviously amplified instruments may not have the same sound from implementation to implementation, Correct. but as you readily admit, the almost always present non-amplified instruments (e.g. drums) combine to create a performance that is easily distinguishable from a recording, even were you correct about the deficiency of the amplified ones. Yes, that's true. It's also rather a stretch to make the claim that any music you find intolerable, and thus with which you have little, or no experience, cannot sound "live", and cannot therefore provide a reference against which reproduction accuracy can be compared. You're jumping to conclusions. Just because I don't LIKE the music doesn't mean that I haven't been exposed to it enough to make some very pointed observations about it or that those observations are in any way biased my musical tastes. snip In modern times there is often a lack of hard distinctions between electronic and non-electronic performances. One only need to consider the digital bottom rank of the Ruffati organ in San Francisco's Davies Symphony Hall. Would this drive AE out of the room? ;-) Of course not. I didn't say that electronic sounds couldn't be musical. I recently recorded a jazz ensemble where the main instrument was an electronic marimba/xylophone. When I tell people listening to the recording that it's an electronic instrument, they don't believe me and insist that it's a real acoustic instrument. Ditto when some electronic pianos - especially when the direct sound from the instrument amplifier/speaker captured via the overall stereo microphione is mixed with the direct electronic signal from the instrument itself, directly into the mixer So, you recorded a "dead" jazz ensemble? Couldn't be "live" by your definition. See the issue? If I understand what you're saying, then, no. I recorded a jazz ensemble that had a mix of both acoustic and electric instruments. I chose to augment the sound of the electric instruments' stage amplifiers (picked-up along with the acoustic instruments using an M-S pair) by mixing-in a bit of the electronic instruments' line-level signal directly and pan-potting them so that they "overlay" the actual physical location of the instruments as picked up by the stereo mike. The direct line-level input gave the full spectrum of sound the instruments were capable of producing (the electric piano, for instance, was a full 88 key keyboard) and the acoustic pick-up by the mikes gave the recording real soundstage and the pinpoint imaging that pan-potting alone simply cannot do. |
#415
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Feb 20, 8:50=A0pm, KH wrote:
Secondly, your hatred for electric guitars is irrelevant to the discussion, and to your (and others) insistence that only "live acoustic" music can possibly be used as a "reference" for realism in reproduction. =A0If *live* electric guitars - or whatever - are readily distinguishable from a recording of same, then clearly they can be used as a reference for *realism*. With electric guitars the amp and speaker are generally part of the overall instrument. Many guitarists go through a number of amps and speakers to get the one combination that sounds the way they want. And in the professional music making world the amplifiers are not often meant to be "straight wires with gain" and the speakers are deliberately not free of color, but instead they are designed to impart a specific coloration. The electric guitar part is only a small part of the actual instrument, just as an organ keyboard is only a small part of the organ. If a rock guitarist plays a particular combination of guitar, amp, and speakers live and an engineer records it the engineer should make the record sound like the actual sound the particular combination makes, and it is as much "live" music as any other. |
#416
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
Then why do acoustic guitars sound so marvelous and electric guitars sound so ugly? Human perception may have something to do with it. I say this because there is no general agreement about your allegations about electric guitars. Also, I see some pretty biased perceptions. I would never say that the musican's choice of musical instrument necessarily eliminates my ability to enjoy good music and good musicianship. I like music and musicians too much for that kind of bias to rule my life. So you would listen to a ptoomer fart as long as he was farting a good song? Excluded middle argument sloughed by me for pretty obvious reasons. Some sounds are just gross, and the talent of the musician or the quality of the music won't make an ugly sound beautiful! Nothing can make a solid body electric guitar sound anything but gross (IMHO). I don't think that the H belongs in your IMHO. Let me suggest an alternative for you: IMBO. B for bias. In modern times there is often a lack of hard distinctions between electronic and non-electronic performances. One only need to consider the digital bottom rank of the Ruffati organ in San Francisco's Davies Symphony Hall. Would this drive AE out of the room? ;-) Of course not. I didn't say that electronic sounds couldn't be musical. I recently recorded a jazz ensemble where the main instrument was an electronic marimba/xylophone. When I tell people listening to the recording that it's an electronic instrument, they don't believe me and insist that it's a real acoustic instrument. Ditto when some electronic pianos - especially when the direct sound from the instrument amplifier/speaker captured via the overall stereo microphione is mixed with the direct electronic signal from the instrument itself, directly into the mixer Your hatred for solid body electric guitars seems to be something that you want to hold onto very tightly. |
#417
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 05:24:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message Then why do acoustic guitars sound so marvelous and electric guitars sound so ugly? Human perception may have something to do with it. I say this because there is no general agreement about your allegations about electric guitars. Also, I see some pretty biased perceptions. I would never say that the musican's choice of musical instrument necessarily eliminates my ability to enjoy good music and good musicianship. I like music and musicians too much for that kind of bias to rule my life. So you would listen to a ptoomer fart as long as he was farting a good song? Excluded middle argument sloughed by me for pretty obvious reasons. Some sounds are just gross, and the talent of the musician or the quality of the music won't make an ugly sound beautiful! Nothing can make a solid body electric guitar sound anything but gross (IMHO). I don't think that the H belongs in your IMHO. Let me suggest an alternative for you: IMBO. B for bias. In modern times there is often a lack of hard distinctions between electronic and non-electronic performances. One only need to consider the digital bottom rank of the Ruffati organ in San Francisco's Davies Symphony Hall. Would this drive AE out of the room? ;-) Of course not. I didn't say that electronic sounds couldn't be musical. I recently recorded a jazz ensemble where the main instrument was an electronic marimba/xylophone. When I tell people listening to the recording that it's an electronic instrument, they don't believe me and insist that it's a real acoustic instrument. Ditto when some electronic pianos - especially when the direct sound from the instrument amplifier/speaker captured via the overall stereo microphione is mixed with the direct electronic signal from the instrument itself, directly into the mixer Your hatred for solid body electric guitars seems to be something that you want to hold onto very tightly. I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds me almost daily (on TV and movies, the car audio systems of people who pull-up beside me every day in traffic, etc.). Electric guitars are terrible but they are part and parcel of something else I hate and can't really get away from - rock-n-roll! They even use some awful rock-n-roll screaming for the themes to popular TV shows (like CSI and CSI Miami). I don't know where they get those "songs" they play on those shows for themes, but I have to mute the sound on my TV 'till they're over. GOD, they're offensive! |
#418
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Feb 21, 4:15=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds me almost daily (o= n TV and movies, the car audio systems of people who pull-up beside me every d= ay in traffic, etc.). Electric guitars are terrible but they are part and pa= rcel of something else I hate and can't really get away from - rock-n-roll! = =A0They even use some awful rock-n-roll screaming for the themes to popular TV sh= ows (like CSI and CSI Miami). I don't know where they get those "songs" they = play on those shows for themes, but I have to mute the sound on my TV 'till they're over. GOD, they're offensive! Where? Don't you mean Who? The "awful" screaming is acoustic though. Ya gotta concede that fact. |
#419
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On 2/21/2011 6:23 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:50:18 -0800, KH wrote (in ): snip Well, first of all I thought it would be clear that "PA system" was not the same as "amplified" or "reinforced" music as was being discussed. Let me clarify - amplified music *Live* versus *recorded* music played through a "PA" system. Personally, I have no problem distinguishing between the two in the Cafe situation posited - one sounds like live players, one does not. Exactly! Exactly indeed - so why do you spend the rest of your post stating the exact opposite position? Secondly, your hatred for electric guitars is irrelevant to the discussion, True enough, except as a point of departure for the discussion, my musical tastes have no relevance at all. and to your (and others) insistence that only "live acoustic" music can possibly be used as a "reference" for realism in reproduction. If *live* electric guitars - or whatever - are readily distinguishable from a recording of same, then clearly they can be used as a reference for *realism*. I don't agree that electric guitars are readily distinguishable from a recording of same, and even if it were possible, the fact that electric guitars can either be fed directly into the mixing console in the recording studio or picked up from their on-stage speakers via microphones, means that there's no real way for the listener to tell which is which showing that electric guitars can sound very different depending upon how they are picked-up. Electric guitars are an *example*, not intended as a paragon. And I do believe that live, acoustic music is the only music that can be used as a reference and for several reasons, not the least of which I just mentioned above. Even though you agreed above that there is some ineffable quality to *amplified* music performed *live* that allows you to distinguish "live" amplified music from recorded? The two positions are not congruent. Obviously amplified instruments may not have the same sound from implementation to implementation, Correct. but as you readily admit, the almost always present non-amplified instruments (e.g. drums) combine to create a performance that is easily distinguishable from a recording, even were you correct about the deficiency of the amplified ones. Yes, that's true. It's also rather a stretch to make the claim that any music you find intolerable, and thus with which you have little, or no experience, cannot sound "live", and cannot therefore provide a reference against which reproduction accuracy can be compared. You're jumping to conclusions. Just because I don't LIKE the music doesn't mean that I haven't been exposed to it enough to make some very pointed observations about it or that those observations are in any way biased my musical tastes. I don't think so. You're saying you've spent a significant amount of time listening critically (not "oh Jeez turn that crap off!!" listening) to genres' you abhor and instruments you despise? Really? Not a matter of your bias affecting your evaluation, rather your preference ensuring you don't *do* any significant critical evaluation of recorded vs live rock for example. snip So, you recorded a "dead" jazz ensemble? Couldn't be "live" by your definition. See the issue? If I understand what you're saying, then, no. I recorded a jazz ensemble that had a mix of both acoustic and electric instruments. I chose to augment the sound of the electric instruments' stage amplifiers (picked-up along with the acoustic instruments using an M-S pair) by mixing-in a bit of the electronic instruments' line-level signal directly and pan-potting them so that they "overlay" the actual physical location of the instruments as picked up by the stereo mike. The direct line-level input gave the full spectrum of sound the instruments were capable of producing (the electric piano, for instance, was a full 88 key keyboard) and the acoustic pick-up by the mikes gave the recording real soundstage and the pinpoint imaging that pan-potting alone simply cannot do. No, the point is, these were not, as you've previously described "real instruments in real space". They were amplified/modified instruments/feeds that by your own prior descriptions cannot be considered "live". Your point has been that such performances do not exist in real space, and are thus not "live". My position is that there is, irrespective of amplification, and ineffable character to a live performance that will always (IME anyway) identify it as "live". To the extent this is true, any such performance is usable as a reference against which to evaluate how closely a reproduction comes to producing that ineffable quality. Keith |
#420
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:51:02 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ): On 2/21/2011 6:23 AM, Audio Empire wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:50:18 -0800, KH wrote (in ): snip Well, first of all I thought it would be clear that "PA system" was not the same as "amplified" or "reinforced" music as was being discussed. Let me clarify - amplified music *Live* versus *recorded* music played through a "PA" system. Personally, I have no problem distinguishing between the two in the Cafe situation posited - one sounds like live players, one does not. Exactly! Exactly indeed - so why do you spend the rest of your post stating the exact opposite position? But I don't. What you said is exactly what I have been saying: Live music sounds like live music, music played through speakers either from a recording or a direct stage pickup via microphone DOES NOT! Secondly, your hatred for electric guitars is irrelevant to the discussion, True enough, except as a point of departure for the discussion, my musical tastes have no relevance at all. and to your (and others) insistence that only "live acoustic" music can possibly be used as a "reference" for realism in reproduction. If *live* electric guitars - or whatever - are readily distinguishable from a recording of same, then clearly they can be used as a reference for *realism*. I don't agree that electric guitars are readily distinguishable from a recording of same, and even if it were possible, the fact that electric guitars can either be fed directly into the mixing console in the recording studio or picked up from their on-stage speakers via microphones, means that there's no real way for the listener to tell which is which showing that electric guitars can sound very different depending upon how they are picked-up. Electric guitars are an *example*, not intended as a paragon. And I do believe that live, acoustic music is the only music that can be used as a reference and for several reasons, not the least of which I just mentioned above. Even though you agreed above that there is some ineffable quality to *amplified* music performed *live* that allows you to distinguish "live" amplified music from recorded? The two positions are not congruent. I do not agree with that. One of us is misreading/misunderstanding the other's posts. Obviously amplified instruments may not have the same sound from implementation to implementation, Correct. but as you readily admit, the almost always present non-amplified instruments (e.g. drums) combine to create a performance that is easily distinguishable from a recording, even were you correct about the deficiency of the amplified ones. Yes, that's true. It's also rather a stretch to make the claim that any music you find intolerable, and thus with which you have little, or no experience, cannot sound "live", and cannot therefore provide a reference against which reproduction accuracy can be compared. You're jumping to conclusions. Just because I don't LIKE the music doesn't mean that I haven't been exposed to it enough to make some very pointed observations about it or that those observations are in any way biased my musical tastes. I don't think so. You're saying you've spent a significant amount of time listening critically (not "oh Jeez turn that crap off!!" listening) to genres' you abhor and instruments you despise? Really? I never said that. I said that I had heard enough of the crap to form some opinions about the sound and how it's achieved. Not a matter of your bias affecting your evaluation, rather your preference ensuring you don't *do* any significant critical evaluation of recorded vs live rock for example. snip So, you recorded a "dead" jazz ensemble? Couldn't be "live" by your definition. See the issue? If I understand what you're saying, then, no. I recorded a jazz ensemble that had a mix of both acoustic and electric instruments. I chose to augment the sound of the electric instruments' stage amplifiers (picked-up along with the acoustic instruments using an M-S pair) by mixing-in a bit of the electronic instruments' line-level signal directly and pan-potting them so that they "overlay" the actual physical location of the instruments as picked up by the stereo mike. The direct line-level input gave the full spectrum of sound the instruments were capable of producing (the electric piano, for instance, was a full 88 key keyboard) and the acoustic pick-up by the mikes gave the recording real soundstage and the pinpoint imaging that pan-potting alone simply cannot do. No, the point is, these were not, as you've previously described "real instruments in real space". They were amplified/modified instruments/feeds that by your own prior descriptions cannot be considered "live". And so they aren't. But they were part of an ensemble that did include real acoustic instruments. Would I rather have had a REAL piano and a REAL marimba to work with? You betcha but I did the best I could with what I had to work with. Your point has been that such performances do not exist in real space, and are thus not "live". My point is that most rock performances do not exist in real space. They rely of such things as vocal synthesizers, reverb units, sound-with and sound-on recorders, extensive EQ, and a myriad of "special effects" that I won't even guess at. My point being that if a rock band is to recreate their recorded performances on stage, they must have, at that concert, all the tools that help them create their "sound" on record. And while they are certainly performing on stage and in real time, what they are doing and what the audience is hearing are only "sort of" the same thing. My position is that there is, irrespective of amplification, and ineffable character to a live performance that will always (IME anyway) identify it as "live". To the extent this is true, any such performance is usable as a reference against which to evaluate how closely a reproduction comes to producing that ineffable quality. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Highly manipulated concert performance and live, acoustic instruments playing to an audience with NO electronic manipulation or amplification between the instruments and the listener's ears are not the same thing. In the one case, the audience is directly listening to the players and the music they are making, and in the other the audience is listening to a manipulated, electronic facsimile (even without SFX) of that performance. And just as recorded music doesn't sound like real music, so such a performance heard through a sound reinforcement system doesn't sound like real music either and for the same reason. That;s my opinion and I stand by it. |
#421
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:43:09 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Feb 21, 4:15=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds me almost daily (o= n TV and movies, the car audio systems of people who pull-up beside me every d= ay in traffic, etc.). Electric guitars are terrible but they are part and pa= rcel of something else I hate and can't really get away from - rock-n-roll! = =A0They even use some awful rock-n-roll screaming for the themes to popular TV sh= ows (like CSI and CSI Miami). I don't know where they get those "songs" they = play on those shows for themes, but I have to mute the sound on my TV 'till they're over. GOD, they're offensive! Where? Don't you mean Who? That doesn't make any sense. "... I don't know WHO they get those "songs"..."???? The "awful" screaming is acoustic though. Ya gotta concede that fact. Is it? Never could get past the screaming to notice. |
#422
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 05:24:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): Your hatred for solid body electric guitars seems to be something that you want to hold onto very tightly. I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds me almost daily (on TV and movies, the car audio systems of people who pull-up beside me every day in traffic, etc.). Those are complex system implementations that don't necessarily shed any specific light on their components. Electric guitars are terrible You need to prove that with simple examples. but they are part and parcel of something else I hate and can't really get away from - rock-n-roll! I've mixed rock and roll performed with acoustic instruments ("unplugged") and I've heard traditional music performed on electric guitars and bass instruments. It can sound good, even to traditional ears. They even use some awful rock-n-roll screaming for the themes to popular TV shows (like CSI and CSI Miami). Again specific examples of a sub genre of rock and roll. I don't know where they get those "songs" they play on those shows for themes, In many cases, highly popular recordings, some of which are also highly regarded for their musical art. but I have to mute the sound on my TV 'till they're over. GOD, they're offensive! ....to you. |
#423
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
"Scott" wrote in message
On Feb 21, 4:15=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds me almost daily (o= n TV and movies, the car audio systems of people who pull-up beside me every d= ay in traffic, etc.). Electric guitars are terrible but they are part and pa= rcel of something else I hate and can't really get away from - rock-n-roll! = =A0They even use some awful rock-n-roll screaming for the themes to popular TV sh= ows (like CSI and CSI Miami). I don't know where they get those "songs" they = play on those shows for themes, but I have to mute the sound on my TV 'till they're over. GOD, they're offensive! Where? Don't you mean Who? Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the best! |
#424
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Feb 22, 4:01=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:43:09 -0800, Scott wrote (in article ): On Feb 21, 4:15=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote: I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds me almost daily= (o=3D n TV and movies, the car audio systems of people who pull-up beside me ever= y d=3D ay in traffic, etc.). Electric guitars are terrible but they are part and= pa=3D rcel of something else I hate and can't really get away from - rock-n-roll!= =3D =3DA0They even use some awful rock-n-roll screaming for the themes to popular TV= sh=3D ows (like CSI and CSI Miami). I don't know where they get those "songs" th= ey =3D play on those shows for themes, but I have to mute the sound on my TV 'till they're over. GOD, they're offensive! Where? Don't you mean Who? That doesn't make any sense. =A0"... I don't know WHO they get those "songs"..."???? That's right! So now you do. The "awful" screaming is acoustic though. Ya gotta concede that fact. Is it? Yep. They even went out of their way to find the right acoustic space to record it. |
#425
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Feb 22, 6:37=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message On Feb 21, 4:15=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote: I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds me almost daily (o=3D n TV and movies, the car audio systems of people who pull-up beside me every d=3D ay in traffic, etc.). Electric guitars are terrible but they are part and pa=3D rcel of something else I hate and can't really get away from - rock-n-roll! =3D =3DA0They even use some awful rock-n-roll screaming for the themes to popular TV sh=3D ows (like CSI and CSI Miami). I don't know where they get those "songs" they =3D play on those shows for themes, but I have to mute the sound on my TV 'till they're over. GOD, they're offensive! Where? Don't you mean Who? Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the best!- Hide= quoted text - 400+ posts into this thread. couldn't pass that one up. I think The Who were quite happy to be offensive to the older genration of their time. "Why don't you all f-fade away And don't try to dig what we all say" |
#426
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 06:37:03 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 05:24:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): Your hatred for solid body electric guitars seems to be something that you want to hold onto very tightly. I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds me almost daily (on TV and movies, the car audio systems of people who pull-up beside me every day in traffic, etc.). Those are complex system implementations that don't necessarily shed any specific light on their components. Electric guitars are terrible You need to prove that with simple examples. but they are part and parcel of something else I hate and can't really get away from - rock-n-roll! I've mixed rock and roll performed with acoustic instruments ("unplugged") and I've heard traditional music performed on electric guitars and bass instruments. It can sound good, even to traditional ears. They even use some awful rock-n-roll screaming for the themes to popular TV shows (like CSI and CSI Miami). Again specific examples of a sub genre of rock and roll. I don't know where they get those "songs" they play on those shows for themes, In many cases, highly popular recordings, some of which are also highly regarded for their musical art. but I have to mute the sound on my TV 'till they're over. GOD, they're offensive! ...to you. Yes Arny. TO ME! One wouldn't expect that I care how it affects others, *I* find the noise offensive, and to me that's all that matters. "The difference between my musical taste and yours is that I have some." Sir Thomas Beecham |
#427
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Feb 22, 9:43=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 06:37:03 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 05:24:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): Your hatred for solid body electric guitars seems to be something that you want to hold onto very tightly. I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds me almost daily (on TV and movies, the car audio systems of people who pull-up beside me every day in traffic, etc.). Those are complex system implementations that don't necessarily shed an= y specific light on their components. Electric guitars are terrible You need to prove that with simple examples. but they are part and parcel of something else I hate and can't really get away from - rock-n-roll! I've mixed rock and roll performed with acoustic instruments ("unplugge= d") and I've heard traditional music performed on electric guitars and bass instruments. =A0It can sound good, even to traditional ears. They even use some awful rock-n-roll screaming for the themes to popular TV shows (like CSI and CSI Miami). Again specific examples of a sub genre of rock and roll. I don't know where they get those "songs" they play on those shows for themes, In many cases, highly popular recordings, some of which are also highly regarded for their musical art. but I have to mute the sound on my TV 'till they're over. GOD, they're offensive! ...to you. Yes Arny. TO ME! One wouldn't expect that I care how it affects others, *= I* find the noise offensive, and to me that's all that matters. "The difference between my musical taste and yours is that I have some." Sir Thomas Beecham Not a good idea to go down that road. limited taste is not a sign of better taste. It can certainly be argued that what you find to be an offensive scream is in fact a very musical vocal expression with strong roots in polyphonics from Western Africa. When carefully studied we find some pretty rich and complex harmonics that some contend leave western classical vocal styles in the dirt in their levels of sophistication and complexity. One can find the lineage from Western Africa through America in it's rich tradition of Blues and Gospel music. The young Brits of the 60s such as Pete Townsend and Roger Daltry along with other legends like Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page were avid, no fanatical students of American Blues. Do you really want to get schooled on the subject? If you don't like that music fine. Nothing wrong with personal taste. I hate opera.The signing is forced, the stories are stupid and the presentation is garish. But I know better than to claim my distaste for opera is a sign of having better taste. I realize that my not liking opera doesn't mean there is nothing to like for others. Personal taste is not an arbitrator of artistic merit. |
#428
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On 2/22/2011 5:01 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:51:02 -0800, KH wrote (in ): On 2/21/2011 6:23 AM, Audio Empire wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:50:18 -0800, KH wrote (in ): snip Well, first of all I thought it would be clear that "PA system" was not the same as "amplified" or "reinforced" music as was being discussed. Let me clarify - amplified music *Live* versus *recorded* music played through a "PA" system. Personally, I have no problem distinguishing between the two in the Cafe situation posited - one sounds like live players, one does not. Exactly! Exactly indeed - so why do you spend the rest of your post stating the exact opposite position? But I don't. What you said is exactly what I have been saying: Live music sounds like live music, music played through speakers either from a recording or a direct stage pickup via microphone DOES NOT! Please read what I wrote; "amplified music *Live* versus *recorded* music played through a "PA" system" - That is what you were agreeing to, intentionally or not. snip Even though you agreed above that there is some ineffable quality to *amplified* music performed *live* that allows you to distinguish "live" amplified music from recorded? The two positions are not congruent. I do not agree with that. One of us is misreading/misunderstanding the other's posts. Yes. snip I don't think so. You're saying you've spent a significant amount of time listening critically (not "oh Jeez turn that crap off!!" listening) to genres' you abhor and instruments you despise? Really? I never said that. I know; that's why it was phrased as a question. I said that I had heard enough of the crap to form some opinions about the sound and how it's achieved. And yet you are unfamiliar with rock music with orchestral accompaniment? You are using a very narrow interpretation of "Rock" to paint broadly. snip No, the point is, these were not, as you've previously described "real instruments in real space". They were amplified/modified instruments/feeds that by your own prior descriptions cannot be considered "live". And so they aren't. But they were part of an ensemble that did include real acoustic instruments. Would I rather have had a REAL piano and a REAL marimba to work with? You betcha but I did the best I could with what I had to work with. As is the case with much of the "Rock" you dismiss as not live. I'm not talking about Mettalica here, or *any* 'stadium' performances - those are only a portion of the genera. Your point has been that such performances do not exist in real space, and are thus not "live". My point is that most rock performances do not exist in real space. They rely of such things as vocal synthesizers, reverb units, sound-with and sound-on recorders, extensive EQ, and a myriad of "special effects" that I won't even guess at. My point being that if a rock band is to recreate their recorded performances on stage, they must have, at that concert, all the tools that help them create their "sound" on record. "Most" rock being based on your limited exposure. snip We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Fair enough. Highly manipulated concert performance and live, acoustic instruments playing to an audience with NO electronic manipulation or amplification between the instruments and the listener's ears are not the same thing. Nor has anyone claimed they are the "same" thing. Only that, as with the jazz ensemble you recorded, even though not purely acoustic, listening to that "live" - including the manipulated electronic music - won't be mistaken for a recording. It's matter of degree, and you only allow for the most extreme degree of manipulation to enter into your evaluation of "Rock", i.e. "stadium" type performances. In the one case, the audience is directly listening to the players and the music they are making, and in the other the audience is listening to a manipulated, electronic facsimile (even without SFX) of that performance. And just as recorded music doesn't sound like real music, so such a performance heard through a sound reinforcement system doesn't sound like real music either and for the same reason. They don't sound like "real" music by your narrow definition, and your preferences. But that doesn't mean they can't be readily distinguishable in comparison to recorded music played in your listening room. And to the extent you can modify your system to improve the illusion of being at the actual performance, you can in fact use such music as a reference for creating realism. That;s my opinion and I stand by it. Be my guest :-) Keith |
#429
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On 2/22/2011 12:05 PM, Scott wrote:
On Feb 22, 9:43=A0am, Audio wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 06:37:03 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in ): Yes Arny. TO ME! One wouldn't expect that I care how it affects others, *= I* find the noise offensive, and to me that's all that matters. "The difference between my musical taste and yours is that I have some." Sir Thomas Beecham Not a good idea to go down that road. limited taste is not a sign of better taste. It can certainly be argued that what you find to be an offensive scream is in fact a very musical vocal expression with strong roots in polyphonics from Western Africa. When carefully studied we find some pretty rich and complex harmonics that some contend leave western classical vocal styles in the dirt in their levels of sophistication and complexity. One can find the lineage from Western Africa through America in it's rich tradition of Blues and Gospel music. The young Brits of the 60s such as Pete Townsend and Roger Daltry along with other legends like Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page were avid, no fanatical students of American Blues. Do you really want to get schooled on the subject? If you don't like that music fine. Nothing wrong with personal taste. I hate opera.The signing is forced, the stories are stupid and the presentation is garish. But I know better than to claim my distaste for opera is a sign of having better taste. I realize that my not liking opera doesn't mean there is nothing to like for others. Personal taste is not an arbitrator of artistic merit. I knew someday we'd find a point of agreement! I agree completely - especially about the Opera part. I can appreciate the talent, but the results I find as offensive as Mr. Empire finds electric guitars. OTOH, I don't dismiss Opera as valid *musical* genre. Keith |
#430
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On 2/22/2011 9:19 AM, Scott wrote:
On Feb 22, 6:37=A0am, "Arny wrote: wrote in message Where? Don't you mean Who? Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the best!- Hide= quoted text - 400+ posts into this thread. couldn't pass that one up. I think The Who were quite happy to be offensive to the older genration of their time. "Why don't you all f-fade away And don't try to dig what we all say" Exactly! It's hard to claim you know the "what" of rock and roll, without knowing the Who. Keith |
#431
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:07:47 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ): On 2/22/2011 9:19 AM, Scott wrote: On Feb 22, 6:37=A0am, "Arny wrote: wrote in message Where? Don't you mean Who? Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the best!- Hide= quoted text - 400+ posts into this thread. couldn't pass that one up. I think The Who were quite happy to be offensive to the older genration of their time. "Why don't you all f-fade away And don't try to dig what we all say" Exactly! It's hard to claim you know the "what" of rock and roll, without knowing the Who. Keith But I don't claim to know the "what" of Rock-n-Roll. All I claimed is that I've heard enough of it (and read enough articles in pro recording magazines about how it's produced) to form some very strong opinions about it. I've also been dragged (under protest) to enough rock concerts by various girlfriends over the years to know what they sound like (which was only fair, because I've dragged them to symphony concerts). I also know that I do not respect it as any more than modern "tin-pan-alley" fare, topical, generational, crass and without class. |
#432
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:52:29 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ): On 2/22/2011 5:01 AM, Audio Empire wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:51:02 -0800, KH wrote (in ): On 2/21/2011 6:23 AM, Audio Empire wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:50:18 -0800, KH wrote (in ): snip Well, first of all I thought it would be clear that "PA system" was not the same as "amplified" or "reinforced" music as was being discussed. Let me clarify - amplified music *Live* versus *recorded* music played through a "PA" system. Personally, I have no problem distinguishing between the two in the Cafe situation posited - one sounds like live players, one does not. Exactly! Exactly indeed - so why do you spend the rest of your post stating the exact opposite position? But I don't. What you said is exactly what I have been saying: Live music sounds like live music, music played through speakers either from a recording or a direct stage pickup via microphone DOES NOT! Please read what I wrote; "amplified music *Live* versus *recorded* music played through a "PA" system" - That is what you were agreeing to, intentionally or not. No, it's not what I'm agreeing to. First it might help to define terms. I used "PA" and "Sound Reinforcement" interchangeably (and perhaps that was accidentally misleading. If so, I apologize) and I used "PA" as short-hand for a sound reinforcement system because no matter how sophisticated such a system might be, it still falls under the heading of a "Public Address" system. Next I never said anything about playing recorded music through a PA system except to say that irrespective of whether the sound reinforcement system's signal comes from a rock-band's microphone mixer or from a CD player, the results will be pretty indistinguishable, one from the other. And I repeat, once the music goes through amplifiers and speakers, any semblance to "live music" from a sound standpoint is GONE. snip Even though you agreed above that there is some ineffable quality to *amplified* music performed *live* that allows you to distinguish "live" amplified music from recorded? The two positions are not congruent. I do not agree with that. One of us is misreading/misunderstanding the other's posts. Yes. snip I don't think so. You're saying you've spent a significant amount of time listening critically (not "oh Jeez turn that crap off!!" listening) to genres' you abhor and instruments you despise? Really? I never said that. I know; that's why it was phrased as a question. I said that I had heard enough of the crap to form some opinions about the sound and how it's achieved. And yet you are unfamiliar with rock music with orchestral accompaniment? You are using a very narrow interpretation of "Rock" to paint broadly. Who cares? You know what I mean. No need to get pedantic and nit-pick here. snip No, the point is, these were not, as you've previously described "real instruments in real space". They were amplified/modified instruments/feeds that by your own prior descriptions cannot be considered "live". And so they aren't. But they were part of an ensemble that did include real acoustic instruments. Would I rather have had a REAL piano and a REAL marimba to work with? You betcha but I did the best I could with what I had to work with. As is the case with much of the "Rock" you dismiss as not live. I'm not talking about Mettalica here, or *any* 'stadium' performances - those are only a portion of the genera. Again, I don't really care. I made clear what I was talking about, and that's that. Your point has been that such performances do not exist in real space, and are thus not "live". My point is that most rock performances do not exist in real space. They rely of such things as vocal synthesizers, reverb units, sound-with and sound-on recorders, extensive EQ, and a myriad of "special effects" that I won't even guess at. My point being that if a rock band is to recreate their recorded performances on stage, they must have, at that concert, all the tools that help them create their "sound" on record. "Most" rock being based on your limited exposure. OK, sure. Nut that's the kind of rock I was referring to, OBVIOUSLY. snip We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Fair enough. Highly manipulated concert performance and live, acoustic instruments playing to an audience with NO electronic manipulation or amplification between the instruments and the listener's ears are not the same thing. Nor has anyone claimed they are the "same" thing. Well, since that's has been my only point for some days, here, I'd have to say that SOMEBODY is claiming that. |
#433
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Feb 22, 2:23=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:07:47 -0800, KH wrote (in article ): On 2/22/2011 9:19 AM, Scott wrote: On Feb 22, 6:37=3DA0am, "Arny =A0wrote: =A0wrote in message Where? Don't you mean Who? Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the best!- = Hide=3D quoted text - 400+ posts into this thread. couldn't pass that one up. I think The Who were quite happy to be offensive to the older genration of their time. "Why don't you all f-fade away And don't try to dig what we all say" Exactly! =A0It's hard to claim you know the "what" of rock and roll, without knowing the Who. Keith But I don't claim to know the "what" of Rock-n-Roll. All I claimed is tha= t I've heard enough of it (and read enough articles in pro recording magazi= nes about how it's produced) to form some very strong opinions about it. I've also been dragged (under protest) to enough rock concerts by various girlfriends over the years to know what they sound like (which was only f= air, because I've dragged them to symphony concerts). I also know that I do no= t respect it as any more than modern "tin-pan-alley" fare, topical, generational, crass and without class. =A0- I present my rebutal in the form of pure evidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZZZ...ture=3Drelated ugly? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D-9_...=3DPLF87F05AD= 2852F466 Crass? without class? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D1GH4FF5o7VM Generational? Without class? This was just one artist out of sooooooo many. Guess I'll just pile on a few more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dz2U...DPLA35FE1 08= 63CCE7D0 Ugly? Crass? No class? Generational? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DSYc...ture=3Drelated yes this is acoustic but I just had to add some vocals from one of Rock and Roll's most famous screamers |
#434
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
Audio Empire wrote:
Yes Arny. TO ME! One wouldn't expect that I care how it affects others, *I* find the noise offensive, and to me that's all that matters. "The difference between my musical taste and yours is that I have some." Sir Thomas Beecham FWIW, I think most rock fans are impressed more by the technical ability of virtuoso guitarists than the sound itself, the latter of which is completely arbitrary and programmable. But you want to talk about annoying, is there any instrument more inherently whiny than a violin? Don't try to pretend that rubbing horsehair against a string sounds "pure," come on, you know it sounds like s***. |
#435
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:27:30 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Feb 22, 2:23=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:07:47 -0800, KH wrote (in article ): On 2/22/2011 9:19 AM, Scott wrote: On Feb 22, 6:37=3DA0am, "Arny =A0wrote: =A0wrote in message Where? Don't you mean Who? Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the best!- = Hide=3D quoted text - 400+ posts into this thread. couldn't pass that one up. I think The Who were quite happy to be offensive to the older genration of their time. "Why don't you all f-fade away And don't try to dig what we all say" Exactly! =A0It's hard to claim you know the "what" of rock and roll, without knowing the Who. Keith But I don't claim to know the "what" of Rock-n-Roll. All I claimed is tha= t I've heard enough of it (and read enough articles in pro recording magazi= nes about how it's produced) to form some very strong opinions about it. I've also been dragged (under protest) to enough rock concerts by various girlfriends over the years to know what they sound like (which was only f= air, because I've dragged them to symphony concerts). I also know that I do no= t respect it as any more than modern "tin-pan-alley" fare, topical, generational, crass and without class. =A0- I present my rebutal in the form of pure evidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZZZ...ture=3Drelated ugly? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D-9_...=3DPLF87F05AD= 2852F466 Crass? without class? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D1GH4FF5o7VM Generational? Without class? This was just one artist out of sooooooo many. Guess I'll just pile on a few more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dz2U...DPLA35FE1 08= 63CCE7D0 Ugly? Crass? No class? Generational? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DSYc...ture=3Drelated yes this is acoustic but I just had to add some vocals from one of Rock and Roll's most famous screamers Again. Who are you trying to convince? And of what? You're certainly not going to make me care, no matter how many URLs you post. Your rebuttal falls on deaf ears because my opinion is fixed. This is a matter of taste, and taste, while it might evolve, is generally not subject to the type of change that would turn a rock hater into a rock lover. Give it up and I'll not mention my disdain for modern "pop" music in this thread again. |
#436
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 07:37:22 -0800, anon wrote
(in article om): Audio Empire wrote: Yes Arny. TO ME! One wouldn't expect that I care how it affects others, *I* find the noise offensive, and to me that's all that matters. "The difference between my musical taste and yours is that I have some." Sir Thomas Beecham FWIW, I think most rock fans are impressed more by the technical ability of virtuoso guitarists than the sound itself, the latter of which is completely arbitrary and programmable. But you want to talk about annoying, is there any instrument more inherently whiny than a violin? Don't try to pretend that rubbing horsehair against a string sounds "pure," come on, you know it sounds like s***. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. A violin is a gorgeous instrument , one of the most expressive. In fact the whole viol family is simply gorgeous sounding when played well by someone who knows how. - the cello, especially, has a richness of tone matched by few instruments. |
#437
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Feb 23, 9:16=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:27:30 -0800, Scott wrote (in article ): On Feb 22, 2:23=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:07:47 -0800, KH wrote (in article ): On 2/22/2011 9:19 AM, Scott wrote: On Feb 22, 6:37=3D3DA0am, "Arny =3DA0wrot= e: =3DA0wrote in message Where? Don't you mean Who? Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the best!= - =3D Hide=3D3D quoted text - 400+ posts into this thread. couldn't pass that one up. I think The Who were quite happy to be offensive to the older genration of their time. "Why don't you all f-fade away And don't try to dig what we all say" Exactly! =3DA0It's hard to claim you know the "what" of rock and roll= , without knowing the Who. Keith But I don't claim to know the "what" of Rock-n-Roll. All I claimed is = tha=3D t I've heard enough of it (and read enough articles in pro recording mag= azi=3D nes about how it's produced) to form some very strong opinions about it. I= 've also been dragged (under protest) to enough rock concerts by various girlfriends over the years to know what they sound like (which was onl= y f=3D air, because I've dragged them to symphony concerts). I also know that I do= no=3D t respect it as any more than modern "tin-pan-alley" fare, topical, generational, crass and without class. =3DA0- I present my rebutal in the form of pure evidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DZ...re=3D3Drelated ugly? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D-...D1&list=3D3DP= LF8... 2852F466 Crass? without class? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D1GH4FF5o7VM Generational? Without class? This was just one artist out of sooooooo many. Guess I'll just pile on a few more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3Dz...D1&list=3D3DP= LA3... 63CCE7D0 Ugly? Crass? No class? Generational? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DS...re=3D3Drelated yes this is acoustic but I just had to add some vocals from one of Rock and Roll's most famous screamers Again. Who are you trying to convince? You of course. It seems everyone else in this thread is already on board. And of what? That even you could like non acoustic music if you are exposed to the good stuff that segways easily from classical and jazz Your rebuttal falls on deaf ears because my opinion is fixed. I guess when you put it that way... |
#438
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:26:55 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Feb 23, 9:16=A0am, Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:27:30 -0800, Scott wrote (in article ): On Feb 22, 2:23=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:07:47 -0800, KH wrote (in article ): On 2/22/2011 9:19 AM, Scott wrote: On Feb 22, 6:37=3D3DA0am, "Arny =3DA0wrot= e: =3DA0wrote in message Where? Don't you mean Who? Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the best!= - =3D Hide=3D3D quoted text - 400+ posts into this thread. couldn't pass that one up. I think The Who were quite happy to be offensive to the older genration of their time. "Why don't you all f-fade away And don't try to dig what we all say" Exactly! =3DA0It's hard to claim you know the "what" of rock and roll= , without knowing the Who. Keith But I don't claim to know the "what" of Rock-n-Roll. All I claimed is = tha=3D t I've heard enough of it (and read enough articles in pro recording mag= azi=3D nes about how it's produced) to form some very strong opinions about it. I= 've also been dragged (under protest) to enough rock concerts by various girlfriends over the years to know what they sound like (which was onl= y f=3D air, because I've dragged them to symphony concerts). I also know that I do= no=3D t respect it as any more than modern "tin-pan-alley" fare, topical, generational, crass and without class. =3DA0- I present my rebutal in the form of pure evidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DZ...re=3D3Drelated ugly? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D-...D1&list=3D3DP= LF8... 2852F466 Crass? without class? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D1GH4FF5o7VM Generational? Without class? This was just one artist out of sooooooo many. Guess I'll just pile on a few more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3Dz...D1&list=3D3DP= LA3... 63CCE7D0 Ugly? Crass? No class? Generational? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DS...re=3D3Drelated yes this is acoustic but I just had to add some vocals from one of Rock and Roll's most famous screamers Again. Who are you trying to convince? You of course. It seems everyone else in this thread is already on board. And of what? That even you could like non acoustic music if you are exposed to the good stuff that segways easily from classical and jazz Your rebuttal falls on deaf ears because my opinion is fixed. I guess when you put it that way... Let me put this another way. Did you not say in an earlier post that you hated opera? Would my posting countless URLs about good opera is and how popular it's become (live Met performances are transmitted to movie theaters all over the country) change your mind about hating opera? Of course not. You don't like it and that's that. I don't like rock. I think it's ugly, crass, has no class, and is entirely generational (the Beatles and the Stones were both of my generation and I didn't even like them THEN). And that's that.! |
#439
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
On Feb 23, 10:48=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:26:55 -0800, Scott wrote (in article ): On Feb 23, 9:16=3DA0am, Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:27:30 -0800, Scott wrote (in article ): On Feb 22, 2:23=3D3DA0pm, Audio Empire wro= te: On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:07:47 -0800, KH wrote (in article ): On 2/22/2011 9:19 AM, Scott wrote: On Feb 22, 6:37=3D3D3DA0am, "Arny =3D3D= A0wrot=3D e: =3D3DA0wrote in message Where? Don't you mean Who? Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the bes= t!=3D - =3D3D Hide=3D3D3D quoted text - 400+ posts into this thread. couldn't pass that one up. I think Th= e Who were quite happy to be offensive to the older genration of the= ir time. "Why don't you all f-fade away And don't try to dig what we all say" Exactly! =3D3DA0It's hard to claim you know the "what" of rock and = roll=3D , without knowing the Who. Keith But I don't claim to know the "what" of Rock-n-Roll. All I claimed i= s =3D tha=3D3D t I've heard enough of it (and read enough articles in pro recording m= ag=3D azi=3D3D nes about how it's produced) to form some very strong opinions about it.= I=3D 've also been dragged (under protest) to enough rock concerts by various girlfriends over the years to know what they sound like (which was o= nl=3D y f=3D3D air, because I've dragged them to symphony concerts). I also know that I = do=3D =A0no=3D3D t respect it as any more than modern "tin-pan-alley" fare, topical, generational, crass and without class. =3D3DA0- I present my rebutal in the form of pure evidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D3...=3D3D3Drelated ugly? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D3...=3D3D3D1&list= =3D3D... LF8... 2852F466 Crass? without class? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D3D1GH4FF5o7VM Generational? Without class? This was just one artist out of sooooooo many. Guess I'll just pile on a few more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D3...=3D3D3D1&list= =3D3D... LA3... 63CCE7D0 Ugly? Crass? No class? Generational? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D3...=3D3D3Drelated yes this is acoustic but I just had to add some vocals from one of Rock and Roll's most famous screamers Again. Who are you trying to convince? You of course. It seems everyone else in this thread is already on board. =A0And of what? That even you could like non acoustic music if you are exposed to the good stuff that segways easily from classical and jazz Your rebuttal falls on deaf ears because my opinion is fixed. I guess when you put it that way... Let me put this another way. Did you not say in an earlier post that you hated opera? yes I did. Would my posting countless URLs about good opera is and how popular it's become (live Met performances are transmitted to movie theat= ers all over the country) change your mind about hating opera? I don't know. I remain open. Of course not. I don't know that, neither do you. I hated jazz, or so I thought until someone played me a recording of Coleman Hawkins playing "Time on my Hands." It was a revelation and opened me up to a whole new world and a whole new way of listening to music. I am a passionate jazz fan now. You don't like it and that's that. I don't like it and I have some experience actually working on Operas. But I'm not one to say "that's that." I hated the entire 90s Seatle grundge scene. I thought Nirvana was just noise and Pearl Jam was terrible. Then I heard Senead O'Conner do a cover of a Nirvana song and it was again, a revelation. I went back and gave Nirvana another listen with a completely different understanding of their music. Now I am a huge fan. It was Eddie Vedder's sound track music from the movie Into the Wild that gave me a whole new perspective on him and Pearl Jam. Clearly opera has merit. maybe someday *I* will come around. I don't like rock. I think it's ugly, crass, has no class, and is entirely generational (the Beatles and the Stones we= re both of my generation and I didn't even like them THEN). And that's that.= !- Clearly we have a different approach to unfamiliar music. I prefer not to shut the door. I have turned around on countless artists and am ever so glad for it. |
#440
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
Let me put this another way. Did you not say in an earlier post that you hated opera? I wonder how Scott feels about "Tommy"? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Another perspective | Car Audio | |||
fm tuners (another perspective) | High End Audio | |||
A Different Perspective on current events | Pro Audio | |||
'Billion' in perspective. | Marketplace |