| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"vinyl believer" = a ranting, psycho, manic TROLL ** A real piece of trailer park trash, for sure. ........... Phil |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Very good Phil...... No profanity!
And after a few days try actually arguing points instead of venting steam out of your ears. VB |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Cain wrote:
vinyl believer wrote: Geez Hank don't take it personally. I'm not the first person to question the integrity of 16/44 digital recording, and whether adequete information is gathered at this sampling rate...... 24/96 recording on the other hand sounds wonderful. Do you actually know anything about sampling theory? You know, the math stuff. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein Yes Bob, I know a bit about "you know, the math", (via a Physics degree) but apparently not as much as you so convince me without listening to a single note that I'm wrong. The physics degree was a long time ago and as an auido engineer I trust my ears more than the numbers. But does anyone acutally LISTEN any more??? ... Or just look at graphs and decide that this is good enough? Bob have you listened to a record in the last year or are you just arguing the numbers. What's the problems here? Have I just questioned the existance of God or intellegent design or something...... Lord you guys seems seriously upset that someone questions the quality of medium-res digital recording. I don't like the sound, I hear a lot of problems and I'm not alone. VB |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Cain wrote:
vinyl believer wrote: Geez Hank don't take it personally. I'm not the first person to question the integrity of 16/44 digital recording, and whether adequete information is gathered at this sampling rate...... 24/96 recording on the other hand sounds wonderful. Do you actually know anything about sampling theory? You know, the math stuff. Well, if he wants to learn: http://lavryengineering.com/document...ing_Theory.pdf I particulary like the graphical example (page 23 (bottom) to page 25 (top)) showing how a 17 KHz wave can be reconstructed from a 44.1 KHz sampling. This is a non-intuitive property of PCM, since intuitively it seems that 2 or 3 points per wave is not enough to reconstruct it. In fact, there are an infinity of waves that would give the same sampling points. But the differences between all those waves are all above the Nyquist frequency. -- http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/ ..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC) Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94 |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vinyl believer" = a ranting, psycho, manic TROLL ** A real piece of trailer park trash, for sure. ........... Phil |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vinyl believer" = a ranting, psycho, manic TROLL ** A real piece of trailer park trash, for sure. ........... Phil |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote:
Chris Hornbeck wrote: To raise an unrelated issue: what's the music of our Vietnam II? We're again mid-war, again divided, but where's the music? One thing that is different is that, because there is no draft, the soldiers who are being mutilated and killed are mostly poor. In Vietnam the middle-class boys were also dying. I don't know about most of the 60's bands but in the case of The Doors (I read Manzarek's book recently), they were middle-class or maybe even rich. Last night I saw Moby live in Lisbon. He introduced the song "Lift Me Up" from his lastest CD as being about the dangerous situation the USA are in due to being ruled by the right ring. Although I think the lyrics are not very explicit. Later I remembered another one: "Stealing of a Nation" by Radio 4. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg.../-/B0002NRMO2/ On another kind of "war music", according to interviews with US soldiers in Iraq (included in "Fahrenheit 9/11") a couple of songs they play on the tanks sound system while killing people: Let The Bodies Hit The Floor - Eminem Fire Water Burn - Bloodhound Gang From the CD: "One Fierce Beer Coaster" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000000OWJ/ "The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire We don't need no water let the mother****er burn Burn mother****er burn [...]" -- http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/ ..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC) Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94 |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
vinyl believer wrote:
Geez Hank don't take it personally. I'm not the first person to question the integrity of 16/44 digital recording, and whether adequete information is gathered at this sampling rate...... 24/96 recording on the other hand sounds wonderful. That is not a potentially accuarte statement when applied to those factors, absent consideration for the specific devices doing the converting. I may not have been recording quite as long as you Hank, but I have 30 years of pro audio recording experience with many major label credits and I can clearly hear that CDs are lacking...... Not only do you hear the "picket fence, swiss cheese, decaf effect", And you have substantiated this blind? I am sorry, I am no rocket scientist, but even I know _there is no picket fence_. It isn't there. but the highs are brittle and un-natrual and the midrange really lacks depth and information...... The lows don't suffer as badly but are still not acurrate to my ears. I have some CD's here that sound fabulous. And I have some LP's that sounded like **** even on the first play. It ain't the medium... -- ha |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
vinyl believer wrote:
Bob have you listened to a record in the last year or are you just arguing the numbers. Production and mastering stupidity have nothing to do with the potential sound quality from 16/44. You might as well be saying since we have an obesity epidemic, _everybody is way too fat_. Strength In Numbers, _The Telluride Sessions_. -- ha |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
vinyl believer wrote:
Great mastering from the likes of Bob Clearmountain, Bob Ohlson, Bernie Grundman and a host of others have turned good records into great records. But in the past records were lightly mastered and many not really at all. Please, VB, the pathway from tape to vinyl is not exactly a linear transfer, and yes, evey single "record" was mastered in order to get onto the consumer playback medium. True, there weren't idiots insisting on destroying dymanic range with a host of plug-ins, but the process was mastering. And you know this. Then in the late 80s and 90s everyone had to have their record mastered Anybody who didn't have a lathe always did have their products mastered if they wanted to listen to the music played back from vinyl. and many inexperiecned mastering engineers just played with their toys on these projecets and screwed them up just about every way possible..... Too much limiting, volume, compression, eq, you name it. (But mostly too much L1 )...... I hope we can find our way out of this audio nightmare. Not a problem, for me personally, as I'm such a small-time niche guy that I don't have an A&R idiot screwing with product. I'm my own idiot and I insist it not get screwed with. -- ha |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Phil Allison wrote:
** So why rudely reject my advice on how to hear that: Because you're an idiot. " ** It is available on CD, on RCA: PCD13766 Big woopdeedo. Get yourself a CD copy and have a good listen on headphones, that will get the vinyl artefacts out of the issue. " But he liked what he heard already. ** But it was NOT recorded onto vinyl - you complete ass. Oh, that'll convince him... Stop being such a stubborn prick and have a good listen to the damn CD. Maybe you should stop telling people what to do? |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Cain wrote:
vinyl believer wrote: Geez Hank don't take it personally. I'm not the first person to question the integrity of 16/44 digital recording, and whether adequete information is gathered at this sampling rate...... 24/96 recording on the other hand sounds wonderful. Do you actually know anything about sampling theory? You know, the math stuff. Perhaps he listens with his ears? You obviously listen with a slide rule. |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Paul Stamler" wrote:
"Harvey Gerst" wrote: Al Schmitt and Dave Hassinger were pretty loose in the control room, and the board was fairly simple, but lots of channels. I don't remember the sessions being in stereo; I think it was mono, which Al usually preferred. Well, "After Bathing at Baxter's" certainly used stereo effectively -- at least the bounce-back-and-forth at the end of "Rejoyce"! I wasn't there for "Rejoyce", so it's possible that with their new-found freedom in multi-tracking, JA played with stereo mixing. I know that even many years later, Al still preferred mono mixes to stereo mixes. The speakers were either UREI's or Altecs, I don't remember which. The sound in the control room was huge. I do remember it was an Ampex recorder being used, but I don't remember the model or how many tracks. I once saw a log of track used on Airplane albums: "Takes Off" - 3 tracks "Surrealistic Pillow" - 4 tracks "After Bathing at Baxter's" - 8 tracks "Crown of Creation" - I *think* 8 tracks "Volunteers" and subsequent albums - 16 tracks Cool, that fills in some of the gaps in my memory. Peace, Paul Harvey Gerst Indian Trail Recording Studio http://www.ITRstudio.com/ |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
maybe think about getting 8 channels of API preamps and 8 channels of
Neve preamps. And get 3 u87's. |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com... maybe think about getting 8 channels of API preamps and 8 channels of Neve preamps. And get 3 u87's. Yes on the U-87s and maybe the Neves, naah on the API's -- they were so Seventies. More likely you're looking at Bill Putnam's tubed preamps, at least on "Surrealistic Pillow", or something similar. Peace, Paul |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Do any of you think the new UA preamps (based on the original Putnams)
do a good job of replicating that sound? How about mics, are there any new mics that sound like a U-47, or is that impossible? How about a Fairchild 660? |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
telefunky wrote:
Richard and Scott: I think you're probably right when you talk about tracking a band live with minimal (if any) overdubs. But doesn't the track count have something to do with it? These recordings feel "roomy" to me. Also, Scott, the record is an original pressing, not the one you mentioned. The small track count is why folks mostly tracked with minimal overdubbing. But it wasn't just a matter of overdubbing either... when you track together you get a lot of leakage and a lot of your recording technique turns into optimizing leakage. When you're recording live to 2-track or at most to a 4-track recorder, your production techniques become very different than they are today. Vinyl Believer: I'd love to hear more about what you meant by new records being "mastered to death". Were these classic albums mastered flat? Is it the extra eq process that ruins so many records? What he is complaining about is the massive amount of compression being used on most modern reissues. There are some labels like DCC that seem to be doing reasonable mastering work, but there is a huge pressure to make things louder at all cost today and to make them brighter at the same time. This is not a technological issue as much as a social one. Someone also mentioned that the high end wasn't overused on these records which I think is a very interesting point and something I'm going to keep in mind while doing my own recordings. This is a technological issue to some extent. If you are recording with the intention of cutting to LP, you _can't_ put too much high end or too much out of phase bass or really much limiting at all on the signal. They will hurt you badly when it comes time to cut. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
vinyl believer wrote: What's the problems here? The problem isn't your prefrerence for vinyl. That be cool enough. The problem is your reason. As is often the case in engineering, the numbers that come out of sampling theory strongly correlate with reality and they belie your depiction and criticism of the PCM representation and reproduction of sound. It is the specifics of your criticism that make one wonder about your knowledge of the theory involved and the praxis which currently comes very close to that theory. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
The problem isn't your prefrerence for vinyl. That be cool
enough. The problem is your reason. As is often the case in engineering, the numbers that come out of sampling theory strongly correlate with reality and they belie your depiction and criticism of the PCM representation and reproduction of sound. It is the specifics of your criticism that make one wonder about your knowledge of the theory involved and the praxis which currently comes very close to that theory. Bob As I mentioned Bob, I know numbers and it looks good on paper and you believe what you see...... I believe what I hear. I've been in this biz for a long time, as you have, and these are my aural observations. Nothing more....... You don't agree fine. You can't hear what I hear, fine. You're happy with the staus quo, fine. I want things to sound better and I'll remain on that quest. I think 16/44 recording is a poor medium, I can hear the compormise in the sample and bit rate, and I think vinyl sounds better and more natural. You can prove me wrong however you like on paper, great. But no offence intended. VB |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
vinyl believer wrote:
As I mentioned Bob, I know numbers and it looks good on paper and you believe what you see...... I believe what I hear. That's fine, so talk about what you hear. Don't make up bull**** explanations about why you hear it. I think 16/44 recording is a poor medium, I can hear the compormise in the sample and bit rate, and I think vinyl sounds better and more natural. You can prove me wrong however you like on paper, great. But no offence intended. That's fine. I don't think there is anything wrong with vinyl, and I wish more people liked vinyl because I can use the money. But don't make up meaningless explanations like "stairstepping" about why because people will call you on it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
Geez Hank don't take it personally. I'm not the first person to
question the integrity of 16/44 digital recording Well, you may be the last one to be wrong about it. Really? You might explain...... I hadn't heard that the case was closed and that 16/44 was proven to be perfect audio. (or even great audio) the "picket fence, swiss cheese, decaf effect" I can honestly say that I've never heard anything that I would describe in those words. Well listen again and compare to a good source with your eyes closed and your mind open.... It's not hard to hear for me after a transfer from source or stepping down from 24/96. (a heartbreaking step I might add for client copies)........ Sorry if you can't hear the difference & problems Mike. I can..... But no offence. No sure why my observations get the hair up. Have you tried 16/44 recording using high quality A/D and D/A converters? If your experience is limited to SoundBlasters........I think you need some up-to-date equipment . .........Surely with 30 years of experience in pro audio you can afford better, or at least find something better to listen on occasionally. I use benchmark A/D........ But this is where your logic and patronization is laughable. You assumed and conclued all in the same paragraph that after 30 years of pro audio major label work I'm using sounblaster tech......hahaha...... You're certainly doing a good job of listening here. To yourself. Please Mike, have more respect for yourself. You are a well known writer and we've worked together. I knw you're smarter than that. Don't make yourself look like a patronizing audio snob. And btw..... Have you listened to a record lately or done any serious source comparisons . No one has yet answered that question, so again I "assume" that you are just arguing the numbers, and I have the advantage as I've actually done the real math, via the ears. VB |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
That's fine, so talk about what you hear. Don't make up
bull**** explanations about why you hear it. I hear missing information and unnatural tonal representaion in 16/44 digital recording. ..... Sorry if that's a bull**** explanation and hard to understand Scott.... I'll try and be more clear in the future. But don't make up meaningless explanations like "stairstepping" ahhhh..... I never used used that term..... But that does sound like a bull**** explaination. Hey lighten up guys...... Just my opinions and professional observations. Do you guys have stock in CD technology or something? VB |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
vinyl believer wrote:
Hey lighten up guys...... Just my opinions and professional observations. Do you guys have stock in CD technology or something? No, I'm just a guy who cuts vinyl who is TIRED of the garbage. It just wears thin after a while. If it sounds good, that's fine. Don't do handwaving about why. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Dorsey wrote:
That's fine. I don't think there is anything wrong with vinyl, and I wish more people liked vinyl because I can use the money. But don't make up meaningless explanations like "stairstepping" about why because people will call you on it. I have heard this explanation before, he didn't make it up. And it does seem to describe what I hear on there as well. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is a technological issue to some extent. If you are recording
with the intention of cutting to LP, you _can't_ put too much high end or too much out of phase bass or really much limiting at all on the signal. They will hurt you badly when it comes time to cut. --scott Yes, thanks Scott, this is what I meant when I said earlier to Phil that I thought this stuff was meant to be heard off of vinyl. If you need to record things a little differently, as you suggest, when cutting to LP, then I would assume the LP should sound more the way the record was intended to sound than cd. Is this right? Anyway, I think being careful with the high end, using more overall reverb, playing the songs together with minimal overduds, mastering flat or flatter, and cutting down on the limiting/compression will get me closer to what I want. |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
telefunky wrote:
Vinyl Believer: I'd love to hear more about what you meant by new records being "mastered to death". Were these classic albums mastered flat? Is it the extra eq process that ruins so many records? I can't find his original post for the fog, but if he's talking about the 'loudness problem', find a copy of 'Vapor Trails' by Rush. When I bought mine, the first thing I did was rip it to Ogg format, since I tend to listen to music on my computer. When I heard it, there was so much clipping and distortion that I assumed it had been somehow copy-protected, since corrupting the ECC is a recognised technique to prevent CDROM drives and cheap CD players from being able to play the disks. When I managed to locate a decent standalone CD player, I discovered that the CD was simply messed up.. the actual recording was clipping. And that was my first encounter with the 'loudness problem'.. -- JP Morris - aka DOUG the Eagle (Dragon) -=UDIC=- Fun things to do with the Ultima games http://www.it-he.org Reign of the Just - An Ultima clone http://rotj.it-he.org d+++ e+ N+ T++ Om U1234!56!7'!S'!8!9!KAW u++ uC+++ uF+++ uG---- uLB---- uA--- nC+ nR---- nH+++ nP++ nI nPT nS nT wM- wC- y a(YEAR - 1976) |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
WHAT are you using as references?
What material What AD/DA What stylus-hrough-preamp vinyl chain With what source material are you comparing vinyl to digital All of these are missing. Elucidate please All stated previously........ WHAT criteria are YOU using to dispute me. Not a single person here, including yourself, has done a Vinyl vs CD comparison lately so I'm arguing against empty chairs. VB |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
vinyl believer wrote:
Compare the CD to Vinyl and you'll find that the vinyl sounds much better Such a comparison might make sense -- if you could find a CD that was cut from the same master tape (of the same age) using the same EQ and compression. because 16 bit 44khz CDs are an inferior medium that is missing a lot of information. Arguable, but just barely. Early 16/44k1 stuff had big trouble with low level detail resolution but recent converters are much, much better. The hard part is getting ahold of decent material to properly compare the two formats (any two formats, really -- just witness all the hullabaloo over SACD comparisons.) |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
vinyl believer wrote:
All stated previously........ WHAT criteria are YOU using to dispute me. Not a single person here, including yourself, has done a Vinyl vs CD comparison lately so I'm arguing against empty chairs. VB You originally made the claim that vinyl is superior to CD so the burden of proof is yours. |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
i know what you're saying Paul. i was just thinking of a "rational"
retro package, rather than going off the deep end! :-) |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
"vinyl believer" = a ranting, psycho, manic TROLL ** A real piece of trailer park trash, for sure. ........... Phil |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Joe Sensor" ** Joe - you are a pig ignorant, ****ing ass. ** So why rudely reject my advice on how to hear that: Because you're an idiot. ** Joe - you are a pig ignorant, ****ing ass. " ** It is available on CD, on RCA: PCD13766 Big woopdeedo. ** Joe - you are a pig ignorant, ****ing ass. Get yourself a CD copy and have a good listen on headphones, that will get the vinyl artefacts out of the issue. " But he liked what he heard already. ** Joe - you are a pig ignorant , ****ing ass. ** But it was NOT recorded onto vinyl - you complete ass. Oh, that'll convince him... ** Joe - you are a pig ignorant, ****ing ass. Stop being such a stubborn prick and have a good listen to the damn CD. Maybe you should stop telling people what to do? ** Joe - you need to stop being a pig ignorant, ****ing ass. But then you would have no friends in the recording industry. .............. Phil |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
vinyl believer wrote:
All stated previously........ WHAT criteria are YOU using to dispute me. Not a single person here, including yourself, has done a Vinyl vs CD comparison lately so I'm arguing against empty chairs. I did a vinyl vs. master comparison about an hour ago. Does that count? Thorens TD-126 with an SME arm and an Audio-Technica OC-9 going into a homebrew preamp with an INA103 front end. Master tape on an unmodified ATR-100. The master sounded better, but that's just the way things go. The vinyl had rotationally-related distortion issues, too, but that is sadly typical of a test pressing. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 29 May 2005 00:36:59 -0700, "vinyl believer"
wrote: Old records sound good because they weren't mastered to death and because records sound better than CDs..... Other than that there's no magic to it. Well . . . There's a lot more to mastering than anyone is getting into here. Bear in mind that old records were mixed to the advantage of vinyl. That was the only delivery medium, so that was what was many mixes were built for. How often were cannons placed hard left on the 1812 Overture? Other times a final mix was pre-eq'd and copied for the mastering house. I used to have to do it myself. Remember, too, that a lot of old "masters" that got rushed to CD were not Masters at all, but LP production safeties that were sent to the union guys at the plant to cut. Even eight-tracks & cassettes had some pre-mastering done to the production masters, if the engineer, producer and record company were on the stick. Because of this, often the provenance of a master is a little in question. Nonetheless, the real Master on 16/44.1 and the vinyl version aren't necessarily equivalent. There is a huge EQ issue. I'm sure that there would be unbelievable advantages to remixing JA specifically for 16/44.1 but that's not what they did when they mixed it in the first place. You would need to AB both with the original master tape (preferably in the original studio) for a prudent analysis, I'm afraid. You'd go away wanting a copy on tape. . . Kurt Riemann |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
You originally made the claim that vinyl is superior to CD so the
burden of proof is yours. True. And I did the comparison and decided it is and explained why. So Case closed since no one else will be bother to make the comparison and dispute my results? ......  Hey I ain't trying to prove gravity here. Just my observations and opinions. VB |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Mixing, Any additional suggestions? | Pro Audio | |||
| enhancing early reflections? | Pro Audio | |||
| Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
| Some Mixing Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
| Creating Dimension In Mixing- PDF available on Request (112 pages0 | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
