[Howard Roseman]

In the July/August issue of Sound & Vision, Little Steven Van Zandt says,
among other things, that analog is better than digital because of "the warm,
fuzzy parts in between the frequencies ... You get a fuller, warmer, truer
sound. The CD is much more compressed and clipped. Instead of hearing the
full range of the snare drum, you just get that top end, like it's cut off.
That's true with every single instrument. Voices sound thinner. Everything
sounds thinner."

Full interview at
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...1&print_page=y

[Bill Roberts Balanced \(Mastering Engineering\)]

It seems to me that this interview is geared toward 14 year olds...

"Howard Roseman" wrote in message
...
In the July/August issue of Sound & Vision, Little Steven Van Zandt says,
among other things, that analog is better than digital because of "the
warm,
fuzzy parts in between the frequencies ... You get a fuller, warmer, truer
sound. The CD is much more compressed and clipped. Instead of hearing the
full range of the snare drum, you just get that top end, like it's cut
off.
That's true with every single instrument. Voices sound thinner. Everything
sounds thinner."

Full interview at
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...1&print_page=y

[[email protected]]

Howard Roseman wrote:
In the July/August issue of Sound & Vision, Little Steven
Van Zandt says, among other things, that analog is better
than digital because of "the warm, fuzzy parts in between
the frequencies ... You get a fuller, warmer, truer sound.
The CD is much more compressed and clipped. Instead
of hearing the full range of the snare drum, you just get
that top end, like it's cut off. That's true with every single
instrument. Voices sound thinner. Everything sounds
thinner."

Just what the world needs: another uninformed aging rocker
who's probably almost completely deaf, undoubtedly stoned
poser who acts like an expert. His comment about "the
fuzzy parts between the frequencies" is an example of the
nonsense technobabble this sort of personality spews
and that some people swoon over.

Several other of his comments bear repeating to put
his "view" in context:

"If you picture the stair steps of a digital wave, ..."

Well, if that's the way he pictures it, he's wrong. No digital
audio has such stair steps.

"Once you hit tape, a whole other thing happens -
tape distortion, ... It's more accurate."

If he would please explain how something that is
distorted is more accurate, ...

And, the killer:

"audiophiles who decided that clarity is a good thing,
Well, guess what? In rock and roll, clarity is not a
good thing."

That explains the often extraordinarily low production
quality of a lot of rock and roll.

Technologically, the guy's a dou*hebag. Undoubtedly
a successful, wealthy one, but one nonetheless.

Ray Crock was also successful and wealthy when
he died. But he had no pretense that a Big Mac
represented the culmination of culinary art, either.
Possibly because despite what he did, Ray Crock's
taste buds were in better shape than Van Sandt's
eardrums.

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
Howard Roseman writes:
In the July/August issue of Sound & Vision, Little Steven Van Zandt says,
among other things, that analog is better than digital because of "the warm,
fuzzy parts in between the frequencies ... You get a fuller, warmer, truer
sound. The CD is much more compressed and clipped. Instead of hearing the
full range of the snare drum, you just get that top end, like it's cut off.
That's true with every single instrument. Voices sound thinner. Everything
sounds thinner."

Full interview at
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...1&print_page=y

I thought it was interesting that he dislikes CDs, but is proud of
playing music on the much inferior digital satellite radio.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[bob]

wrote:
Howard Roseman wrote:
In the July/August issue of Sound & Vision, Little Steven
Van Zandt says, among other things, that analog is better
than digital because of "the warm, fuzzy parts in between
the frequencies ... You get a fuller, warmer, truer sound.
The CD is much more compressed and clipped. Instead
of hearing the full range of the snare drum, you just get
that top end, like it's cut off. That's true with every single
instrument. Voices sound thinner. Everything sounds
thinner."

Just what the world needs: another uninformed aging rocker
who's probably almost completely deaf, undoubtedly stoned
poser who acts like an expert. His comment about "the
fuzzy parts between the frequencies" is an example of the
nonsense technobabble this sort of personality spews
and that some people swoon over.

Several other of his comments bear repeating to put
his "view" in context:

"If you picture the stair steps of a digital wave, ..."

Well, if that's the way he pictures it, he's wrong. No digital
audio has such stair steps.

"Once you hit tape, a whole other thing happens -
tape distortion, ... It's more accurate."

If he would please explain how something that is
distorted is more accurate, ...

And, the killer:

"audiophiles who decided that clarity is a good thing,
Well, guess what? In rock and roll, clarity is not a
good thing."

That explains the often extraordinarily low production
quality of a lot of rock and roll.

But in an alternative universe where accuracy = lack of clarity, his
entire rant is internally consistent.

Technologically, the guy's a dou*hebag. Undoubtedly
a successful, wealthy one, but one nonetheless.

Ray Crock was also successful and wealthy when
he died. But he had no pretense that a Big Mac
represented the culmination of culinary art, either.
Possibly because despite what he did, Ray Crock's
taste buds were in better shape than Van Sandt's
eardrums.

OTOH, he programs one hell of a rock'n'roll show. If you don't get
satellite, check out his weekly terrestrial show, "Little Steven's
Underground Garage." (Not recommended for harpsichord fans.)

bob

[Serge Auckland]

wrote:
Howard Roseman wrote:
In the July/August issue of Sound & Vision, Little Steven
Van Zandt says, among other things, that analog is better
than digital because of "the warm, fuzzy parts in between
the frequencies ... You get a fuller, warmer, truer sound.
The CD is much more compressed and clipped. Instead
of hearing the full range of the snare drum, you just get
that top end, like it's cut off. That's true with every single
instrument. Voices sound thinner. Everything sounds
thinner."

Just what the world needs: another uninformed aging rocker
who's probably almost completely deaf, undoubtedly stoned
poser who acts like an expert. His comment about "the
fuzzy parts between the frequencies" is an example of the
nonsense technobabble this sort of personality spews
and that some people swoon over.

Several other of his comments bear repeating to put
his "view" in context:

"If you picture the stair steps of a digital wave, ..."

Well, if that's the way he pictures it, he's wrong. No digital
audio has such stair steps.

"Once you hit tape, a whole other thing happens -
tape distortion, ... It's more accurate."

If he would please explain how something that is
distorted is more accurate, ...

And, the killer:

"audiophiles who decided that clarity is a good thing,
Well, guess what? In rock and roll, clarity is not a
good thing."

That explains the often extraordinarily low production
quality of a lot of rock and roll.

Technologically, the guy's a dou*hebag. Undoubtedly
a successful, wealthy one, but one nonetheless.

Ray Crock was also successful and wealthy when
he died. But he had no pretense that a Big Mac
represented the culmination of culinary art, either.
Possibly because despite what he did, Ray Crock's
taste buds were in better shape than Van Sandt's
eardrums.

Here here! But what is a dou*hebag?

..

[Steven Sullivan]

Howard Roseman wrote:
In the July/August issue of Sound & Vision, Little Steven Van Zandt says,
among other things, that analog is better than digital because of "the warm,
fuzzy parts in between the frequencies ... You get a fuller, warmer, truer
sound. The CD is much more compressed and clipped. Instead of hearing the
full range of the snare drum, you just get that top end, like it's cut off.
That's true with every single instrument. Voices sound thinner. Everything
sounds thinner."

Full interview at
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...1&print_page=y

I saw that too. Embarrassing to read, but not at all atypical of the
average self-professed 'audio purist' or 'audiophile'. The shame is that some
readers might actully think he's right, given that S&V declined
to refute his claims.

Dave Ranada must have winced.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Stuart Krivis]

On 17 Aug 2006 23:43:27 GMT, (David E. Bath)
wrote:

In article ,
Howard Roseman writes:
In the July/August issue of Sound & Vision, Little Steven Van Zandt says,
among other things, that analog is better than digital because of "the warm,
fuzzy parts in between the frequencies ... You get a fuller, warmer, truer
sound. The CD is much more compressed and clipped. Instead of hearing the
full range of the snare drum, you just get that top end, like it's cut off.
That's true with every single instrument. Voices sound thinner. Everything
sounds thinner."

Full interview at
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...1&print_page=y

I thought it was interesting that he dislikes CDs, but is proud of
playing music on the much inferior digital satellite radio.

But he's playing analog tapes and you get all that fuzzy stuff between
the toes with analog. It actually over-rides the digital radio. I've
noticed almost everything over Sirius or XM is a bit fuzzy.

I don't mind it when people say they like analog better. But I hate
when they try to justify it or come up with psuedo-science reasons why
analog is better.

[Stuart Krivis]

On 18 Aug 2006 18:18:11 GMT, Serge Auckland
wrote:

wrote:
Howard Roseman wrote:
In the July/August issue of Sound & Vision, Little Steven
Van Zandt says, among other things, that analog is better
than digital because of "the warm, fuzzy parts in between
the frequencies ... You get a fuller, warmer, truer sound.
The CD is much more compressed and clipped. Instead
of hearing the full range of the snare drum, you just get
that top end, like it's cut off. That's true with every single
instrument. Voices sound thinner. Everything sounds
thinner."

Just what the world needs: another uninformed aging rocker
who's probably almost completely deaf, undoubtedly stoned
poser who acts like an expert. His comment about "the
fuzzy parts between the frequencies" is an example of the
nonsense technobabble this sort of personality spews
and that some people swoon over.

Several other of his comments bear repeating to put
his "view" in context:

"If you picture the stair steps of a digital wave, ..."

Well, if that's the way he pictures it, he's wrong. No digital
audio has such stair steps.

"Once you hit tape, a whole other thing happens -
tape distortion, ... It's more accurate."

If he would please explain how something that is
distorted is more accurate, ...

And, the killer:

"audiophiles who decided that clarity is a good thing,
Well, guess what? In rock and roll, clarity is not a
good thing."

That explains the often extraordinarily low production
quality of a lot of rock and roll.

Technologically, the guy's a dou*hebag. Undoubtedly
a successful, wealthy one, but one nonetheless.

Ray Crock was also successful and wealthy when
he died. But he had no pretense that a Big Mac
represented the culmination of culinary art, either.
Possibly because despite what he did, Ray Crock's
taste buds were in better shape than Van Sandt's
eardrums.

Here here! But what is a dou*hebag?

I think it's short for double hebag, so maybe it's 2 condoms?

[[email protected]]

wrote:
Howard Roseman wrote:
In the July/August issue of Sound & Vision, Little Steven
Van Zandt says, among other things, that analog is better
than digital because of "the warm, fuzzy parts in between
the frequencies ... You get a fuller, warmer, truer sound.
The CD is much more compressed and clipped. Instead
of hearing the full range of the snare drum, you just get
that top end, like it's cut off. That's true with every single
instrument. Voices sound thinner. Everything sounds
thinner."

Just what the world needs: another uninformed aging rocker
who's probably almost completely deaf, undoubtedly stoned
poser who acts like an expert.

Really? he is posing like an expert? Seems to me he is just offering an
opinion on sound quality. Heaven forbid an artist express an opinion on
such things.

" His comment about "the
fuzzy parts between the frequencies" is an example of the
nonsense technobabble this sort of personality spews
and that some people swoon over."

Technobabble? What is technical sounding about that comment? Seems like
a very easthetic coment. Again, heaven forbid artists should have any
opinions on the aesthetic qualities of their work.


Several other of his comments bear repeating to put
his "view" in context:

"If you picture the stair steps of a digital wave, ..."

Well, if that's the way he pictures it, he's wrong. No digital
audio has such stair steps.

"Once you hit tape, a whole other thing happens -
tape distortion, ... It's more accurate."

If he would please explain how something that is
distorted is more accurate, ...

Do you really need an explination? You really cannot comprehend how
added distortion could make something seem more realistic?


And, the killer:

"audiophiles who decided that clarity is a good thing,
Well, guess what? In rock and roll, clarity is not a
good thing."

That explains the often extraordinarily low production
quality of a lot of rock and roll.

Low production quality? You say this as though there were an objective
standard for aesthetic values in Rock and Roll.


Technologically, the guy's a dou*hebag. Undoubtedly
a successful, wealthy one, but one nonetheless.

Irrelevant. He has his opinions about sound quality and is as entitled
to them as anyone else.


Ray Crock was also successful and wealthy when
he died. But he had no pretense that a Big Mac
represented the culmination of culinary art, either.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Possibly because despite what he did, Ray Crock's
taste buds were in better shape than Van Sandt's
eardrums.

Maybe. How is your hearing acuity?

Scott

[Harry Lavo]

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Howard Roseman wrote:
In the July/August issue of Sound & Vision, Little Steven
Van Zandt says, among other things, that analog is better
than digital because of "the warm, fuzzy parts in between
the frequencies ... You get a fuller, warmer, truer sound.
The CD is much more compressed and clipped. Instead
of hearing the full range of the snare drum, you just get
that top end, like it's cut off. That's true with every single
instrument. Voices sound thinner. Everything sounds
thinner."

Just what the world needs: another uninformed aging rocker
who's probably almost completely deaf, undoubtedly stoned
poser who acts like an expert. His comment about "the
fuzzy parts between the frequencies" is an example of the
nonsense technobabble this sort of personality spews
and that some people swoon over.

Several other of his comments bear repeating to put
his "view" in context:

"If you picture the stair steps of a digital wave, ..."

Well, if that's the way he pictures it, he's wrong. No digital
audio has such stair steps.

"Once you hit tape, a whole other thing happens -
tape distortion, ... It's more accurate."

If he would please explain how something that is
distorted is more accurate, ...

And, the killer:

"audiophiles who decided that clarity is a good thing,
Well, guess what? In rock and roll, clarity is not a
good thing."

That explains the often extraordinarily low production
quality of a lot of rock and roll.

Technologically, the guy's a dou*hebag. Undoubtedly
a successful, wealthy one, but one nonetheless.

Ray Crock was also successful and wealthy when
he died. But he had no pretense that a Big Mac
represented the culmination of culinary art, either.
Possibly because despite what he did, Ray Crock's
taste buds were in better shape than Van Sandt's
eardrums.

Here here! But what is a dou*hebag?


It's a douchebag.