Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Obviously, you've never done much mixing, Ruud. I've mixed 100's of hours of music. Figure 8 hours and up of mixing time for every hour of finished recording.Tat little bit of experience leaves me at the tyro level, but I have some idea of how the game goes, based on hands-on expereince. Thanks for admitting you learned about mixing recordings by knitting doilies. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Arny said: I've mixed 100's of hours of music. Would you figure out once and for all that this is not the proper way to write this, you ****ing idiot? How many years do we have to make fun of you before you finally realize your mistake and fix it? Boon |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Arny said: I've mixed 100's of hours of music. Would you figure out once and for all that this is not the proper way to write this, you ****ing idiot? How many years do we have to make fun of you before you finally realize your mistake and fix it? Not only 'tat'. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "ThePorkyGeorge" wrote in message From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 1/8/2005 7:02 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "ThePorkyGeorge" wrote in message Our local legal genius Scott Wheeler apparently has a new alias. Presumably it is self-descriptive. Idiots make many such stupid presumptions. It's the name of our Bulldog. Like I said, self-descriptive. The last guy I recall from around here to pick his alias up from a dog, came to a kind of unfortunate even cataclysmic end. I decided to use my cat's name for an alias. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Arny said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message Arny said: I've mixed 100's of hours of music. Would you figure out once and for all that this is not the proper way to write this, you ****ing idiot? How many years do we have to make fun of you before you finally realize your mistake and fix it? This is informal writing, Phillips. If you want to play English Composition teacher, get a degree in teaching and find a job in your local school system. "Marc Phillips" wrote in message Arny said: I've mixed 100's of hours of music. Would you figure out once and for all that this is not the proper way to write this, you ****ing idiot? How many years do we have to make fun of you before you finally realize your mistake and fix it? This is informal writing, Phillips. No, it's not, you ****ing moron. If you want to play English Composition teacher, get a degree in teaching and find a job in your local school system. And make half as much money as I do now? Would that be known as The Krueger Plan? From his perspective, it would increase his earnings. So, he projected it onto you. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... I'm talking real government money Phillips, not the imaginary play money that you throw around Usenet. The king of the government handouts speaks his mind, such as it is. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: "ThePorkyGeorge" wrote in message From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 1/8/2005 7:02 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "ThePorkyGeorge" wrote in message Our local legal genius Scott Wheeler apparently has a new alias. Presumably it is self-descriptive. Idiots make many such stupid presumptions. It's the name of our Bulldog. Like I said, self-descriptive. You are an idiot. The last guy I recall from around here to pick his alias up from a dog, came to a kind of unfortunate even cataclysmic end. So what? From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 1/8/2005 11:04 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Obviously, you've never done much mixing, Ruud. I've mixed 100's of hours of music. Figure 8 hours and up of mixing time for every hour of finished recording.That little bit of experience leaves me at the tyro level, but I have some idea of how the game goes, based on hands-on experience. Doesn't make your opinion any more valid really. Out-of-hand, unqualified, unjustified dismissal of significant hands-on experience with mixing noted. It wasn't dismissal just a basic fact. Your idea of facts is pretty strange, Scott. Ask the California Superior Court if you need a reminder about that. Having trouble following the thread I see. Many people with a little hands on experience are still fools. Which makes people who talk big based on zero hands-on experience like you Scott, exactly what? It doesn't make me one thing or another dip****. Are you really this stupid? If you blow it in the mix, you've very likely wounded the music in ways that no LP mastering job or so-called euphonic tubed amp can fix. If you "blow it" perhaps. But the bottom line is there is a vast gray area between an ideal mix and a "blown mix." True, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand because we're not talking about the gray area between an ideal mix and a blown mix. Instead we're trying to understand an apparent claim that a bad or undesirable mix can be repaired by the use of what amounts to being arbitrarily-designed EFX boxes, AKA vacuum tube audio equipment. Wrong on every count. A Blown mix to one person may be a moderately bad mix to another. Scott, your inane continuing to blather about blown mixes doesn't make them relevant. Could you repeat this is English please. The point of tubes inst to balance bad mixes in recordings though it is to balance the playback end of things. This isn't a comprehendible sentence, Scott. Actually it is. It may not be pretty but, unlike many of your sentneces in this thread, it is gramatically correct. Sorry you couldn't understand it. Go talk to your buddy Marc Phillips and learn how to write. Hmm, are you saying that by talking to Marc I will learn how to write? It never worked for you. Besides, you are hardly one to be a writing critic. You cant even understand a basic compound sentence. He's begging for people to ask him how to write, since he doesn't seem to have a lot to say about audio. You are lying again. Business as usual. Specifically, a stereo mix of a common multitrack master is the result of a many-to-few process. Not really sure what you are trying to say here. I explain it in more detail Scott, but I get the feeling its way over your head. You could jusrt write something that makes sense. Well. maybe not. Not much math in your educational background, right? Actually plenty. Unlike you I went to a top notch universtity instead of a third tier local college. Is that why you keep bringing up the issue of education? Do you fell shamed by your pathetic third rate education? It's good enough for a life on Usenet isn't it? Or is it? Considerable information is in essence irretrievably lost during mixdown. Multitrack recordings are recorded usually with a mix down in mind. Doooh! Over your head. Some information is lost on purpose. Dooh! Over your head. But there in lies the vagueness of the whole thing. Nope. Yep. A multitrack master arguably has far more detail and far more information in it than what a person will hear in an equivalent live performance. You can argue that all you want but it doesn't make much sense. But you wouldn't undrstand why I suspect. I suppose you think you get more information if you stick your head inside a tuba whn listening to a brass band. The name of the game is to select the information contained therein in such a way that you result in a believable and useful representation of the live performance. Duh. Now Scott, you can't possibly have any real world experience with this, so I understand why these words are incomprehensible to you. Lying again. It's so ....you. I can understand why your wife beats you on a daily basis. One's blown mix is another person's masterpiece. I don't think so. Yeah but you are an idiot. There is a range of mixes that are acceptable, but some will be preferable over others to various people based on individual tastes. You are missing the scope of personal taste. But you are also missing the scope of mixing multitrack recordings. A truly blown mix will be missing information that is required to make the mix to anybody who understands the music. That may be *your* idea of a blown mix. You have no exclusive on opinions about what is and is not a blown mix. The thing is not all artists have good ears for sound. To some degree, multitrack mixing steps around many aspects of that problem. No it doesn't. For example, if a member of a vocal group is not singing well (e.g. off key), they can be pretty much excluded from the mix. If a maemebr is not singing well he or she is a bad artist regardless of their ear. If one or more members of the group are singing too loud, a proper balance can generally be put back into the mix. It's very difficult or impossible to do these things in the mastering phase. For example, I am in the habit of mixing down 12 (twelve) 32/44,100 Hz sample rate channels down into two channels of 16/44,100 audio (normal CD audio). The input information rate is 16,934,400 bits per second (bps) but the output information rate is merely 1,411,200 bps. The claim has in essence been made that a more-or-less arbitrarily designed EFX box otherwise known as a vacuum tube amplifier can somehow recover some or all of the missing 15,52,3200 bps. Really? Who claimed that? You did Scott. Liar. Not in exactly those words, but that's the probably essence of what you were trying to say with this almost unintelligible mess: "The point of tubes inst to balance bad mixes in recordings though it is to balance the playback end of things." It isn't. Over your head. Cite a quote please. I'll get in line right behind you and call them on that, if that is the actual claim. You can start cleaning up your act any time, Scott. What are you babbling about? I see you have no quote to support your bull****. Are you trying to cover for it by babbling about nothing in particular? Please start out by limiting your discussion to things you have at least the foggiest notion about. Please stop mangling the English language. This is of course completely ludicrous. But, it is the kind of claim that Scott Wheeler might make. Nonsense. Agreed, nonsense or completely ludicrous. A moment of clarity or did you not understand that you agreed with me that your claim was nonsense? IOW, if some people on some occasion blow the mixdown phase, you really have little choice but to take their work for what it is worth. No, the mastering engineer can still make improvements. Better is better. Given the huge amounts of information that are lost in the mixdown process, the purported improvement is like spitting into the wind. That is highly subjective. Actually its pretty factual and agreed upon by mixing engineers. Bull****. Feel free to prove it though. It is possible to do some fixup in the mastering step, but you can only go so far. Actually some mastering engineers have worked miracles and some have turned good recordings into garbage.Different masterings of the same recordings have been known to cover the range of awful to wonderful. Again, the amount of data loss that is inherent in the mixing process puts severe constraints on the improvements that can be made during remastering of an existing recording. Not at all. For sure. Wrong. Maybe you don't really get the idea behind multitrack recording. It is a means to an end. Agreed. In the ideal mix all the information there is all that is desired. With the multitude of mixes that are somewhere in between blown and ideal there is more than enough information on the tape for the mastering engineer to make a good or a bad final product First off Scott, you've got the context wrong. very little mixing is done off of tapes any more. I guess you never heard of Pro Tools or DAWs, but they do exist and they are pretty much how things are done these days. WTF does this little babble session have to do with the content of my post? Nothing. Of course you may not be aware of them because you live in a dream world where tubes are all that matter. No, I am aware of them. Often one longs for the raw tracks to work with. Sometimes mastering engineers get them. If they do, then they aren't mastering, they are mixing. Did I say otherwise? Yes, Scott you said that mastering engineers get them. Yes I said they get them. They are still mastering engineers dip**** even if they are doing some mixing first they still do the nmastering job later. Is this a little to abstract for your pin headed brain? As soon as a mastering engineer gets stops working with a multitrack master he stops mastering and starts mixing. In English please. Perhaps that isn't how things are in your all-tubes dream world, but back in the real world... What would you know about the real world of mixing and mastering Arny? Hint, your home brewed amateur projects are not the same as real world mixing and mastering. You have no added credibility because you like to play with recordings as a hobby. Scott, I suggest that you try to keep the technical terminology straight. I suggest you work on your reading comprehension. Reading comprehension can't fix the fact that you don't really understand what you are talking about, Scott. You definitely need to work on your logic skills. Your recent confusion of mastering and mixing is just another example of your limited understanding of audio production. No, it's just another example of you making things up when you are losing an argument. Unfortunately you are trying to pretend to having expertise in an area that is far from your real-world occupation or formal training. No. But you are. That's funny. Wrong again Scott. Perhaps you missed John Atkinson's evaluation of one of my multitrack projects? LOL You think that makes you an expert? That is funny. I guess you have been secretly admiring John, no worshiping him. I mean to give him so much power that a kind word from him about your amateur recordings makes you an expert is really a clear sign of hero worship. The cat is out of the bag. I've never seen you even claim to have any hands-on experience at all with any phase of audio production. That's because I haven't. I'll bet that telling that much truth hurt your mouth, Scott. If you had any money to bet you would lose it quickly. OTOH for you to claim your dabbling somehow makes you some kind of expert is quite laughable. I specifically excluded such a claim earlier in this thread. No. I guess you don't even understand what you write. Thanks for your tacit admission that your memory is so short that you've already forgotten it, Scott. Do I need to repeat it, or can you find it on your own? You mean this little bit of your post? "Out-of-hand, unqualified, unjustified dismissal of significant hands-on experience with mixing noted." Maybe you are the one with memory issues. The thing is, one does not have to have any hands on experience to have a legitimate opinion on the quality of work This isn't about quality of work Scott, its about what various steps in the production process can possibly accomplish well. Do you have any idea how stupid that last sentence was? You've already proven that you are confused about the difference between mixing and mastering, so your comments are just errors and trash. You are an idiot on every level. and a little bit of hobbyist hands on experience doesn't give one's opinion any more legitimacy. Fact is Scott that I've actually done 100's of mixdowns, which while small compared to an experienced professional, is a lot more than a little bit. No. Given that you are yet to do your first mixdown, I can see why you have no appreciation for what I'm saying. No, I appreciate the show you put on for us Arny. I get the humor even if you don't. Infact standing on a soapbox built out of a little amateur dabbling only hurts your credibility. Not that you had any left. Scott, accusing me of your grotesque technical errors and misapprehensions isn't going to help you. Clearly you don't understand what I am saying. Maybe you should get Richman, Middius or Phillips to add a lot of trashy posts to this thread right away so that people won't see all over your ridiculous errors and ignorant claims. I think they are too busy laughing at you. Why are you trying to contradict people who have been doing various kinds of audio production for decades? The question is why are you doing it? I'm not doing that, Scott. Yes you are. You are just too ignorant to know it. I'm just disagreeing with you and your confused perceptions about audio production. So says the guy who lives his life on Usenet. You might want to get out and talk to real pros about the whole thing some day. You really shouldn't get so excited just because your hero, Atkinson threw you a doggy treat. I'm just disagreeing with an amateur wannabe who never was. It is true that you are even disagreeing with your recent statements, Scott. So I agree, you are just disagreeing with an amateur wannabe who never was. Put your head between your knees and maybe you will get enough blood to your brain to allow you to make some sense. Right now you just sound confused. At any rate, the vacuum tube amplifier that you have been recommending as a means for correcting or changing mixdowns is a far cry from an intelligent mixing engineer working with many times as much information. I have made no such recommendation. You are completely out of touch with reality. Come on Scott, you tell us that vacuum tubes rule and that they can fix up badly mixed recordings. You are quite delusional, still. But feel free to cite any quote where I say this. OTOH Scott, perhaps the mixing or mastering engineers that you have been conversing with are no more intelligent than a vacuum tube amplifier. The ones I converse with are proven pros who have produced great sounding commercial releases. What have you done Arny? I'm sorry that you've missed some fairly significant things that have been posted on RAO, Scott. Thanks for admitting you have done nothing of note. Perhaps someday raw tracks of great legacy recordings will be released, so that people with the time and energy can have it their way. Actually in some cases they have been made available to some very talented mastering engineers and the results have been stunning. I would rather leave that job to such experts. Given your demonstrated lack of audio technical expertise Scott, I agree that you should not even think about trying to do a mixdown, should somehow a proper set of audio tracks fall into the demented regime of your acutely limited technical capabilities. I suggest that you stick to the practice of law. Um, I am a makeup artist Arny, and I intend to stick with it. No Scott, Yes Arny, I am a makeup artist. you really need to seek help quickly. You might not be getting enough oxygen in your basement. you've claimed that you are qualified "..to have a legitimate opinion on the quality of work (on mixdowns and mastering)". You can't get anything right can you? Funny that you would quote half the sentence. Could it be that the whole sentence in it's context says something competely different? Could be. But anyone who buys a commercial recording has a legitimate opinion about the quality of the mix and mastering since the commercial recording was purchased for their enjoyment. Is that simple fact beyond you? You OTOH seem to be getting more and more out of touch with reality. All the RAO Middius dupes and Richman drone-alikes say stuff like that. Yawn! They are right. At least you can make vain attempts at legal action. Scott won't own up to his failed libel suit against me, that he filed and attempted to try in California Superior Court. He believed on the basis of his readings that he would be able to prevail in my absence by default. In fact, his case was thrown out of court and he lost his legal costs Still having trouble with facts. Oh well. Such is the mindset of a loser who lives for Usenet. Funny that you take pride in being sued for making false accusations of pedophilia. Most people who have a life outside of Usenet would be quite ashamed of something like that. Scott, I seriously doubt that you can even make vain attempts at mixing down a multitrack master as you practice audio technology in accordance with your backward preferences using outdated retro-technology. I seriously doubt you could ever do a decent job of mixing down any sort of multitrack recording yourself. Go argue with Atkinson, Scott. Your hero? I think you have made far to much out of that doggy treat he threw you. At least we know how you really feel about him now. At least I don't pretend to be a legitimate mixing engineer. But you do claim to be a legitimate critic and audio expert, Scott. No. I claim to have a legitimate opinion as does any other consumer. Man, get a life. If you think you got the chops to be a recording/mixing engineer get outin the real world and prove yourself. Home brewed amateurs are a dime a dozen. Scott, I am out in the real world. Then act like it. I've even been in Los Angeles in the past week. Anyone hire you as a recording engineer? I thought not. Scott, I am amusing myself with the thought of you trying to record or mix down a multrack master to modern standards with your hobby-horse outdated vacuum tube technology. I find it amusing that you would confuse an Audio Research D-115 Mk II amp and SP 10 preamp with a mixing console. You really are losing it. I never did such a thing Scott. Yes you did dip****. I specifically excluded that possibility when I said that you had zero experience or tools in your possession for mixing. Nice try but this is what you said. "Scott, I am amusing myself with the thought of you trying to record or mix down a multrack master to modern standards with your hobby-horse outdated vacuum tube technology." For one thing there never were any appreciable number of multitrack vacuum tube analog tape recorders with anything like modern capabilities. The world upgraded to solid state before the track count became large enough to be interesting by modern standards. Oh really? So you think commercial recordings were sounding better after SS multitrack consoles were widely used? That's funny. That's the real world Scott. That's the genesis of the vast majority of mainstream recordings. Obviouisly a world you know little about. But hey if you want to say that commercial recordings were mostly better after SS mixing consoles were widely used, go ahead. Your foot and your mouth. Historically speaking, most vacuum tube tape recorders for audio production had two tracks, or less. And they tended to produce better sounding final product. Irrelevant since almost all recordings are made from multitrack masters, and therefore are produced almost entirely or entirely on SS equipment. I guess you are missing the point, as usual. How do you erase the imprint of SS that you have so many misapprehensions about from the recordings you listen to, Scott? I guess the fact that I was trying to compare the quality of recordings made without such junk to recordings made with it went right over your head. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
to *do* the transcript'n , ??
Bingo!! RB "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... : "Ruud Broens" wrote in message : Well, there is also to consider the fact that a lot of material : has, up to now, only been published in LP format : : Given that LPs were about all we had from about 1950 to 1983, why : would this be significant? : : Ehhm, if the question is : "why would people *want* to keep using : record players in the age of CD & DVD " : it seems to be clear enough.. : : In fact almost nobody wants to use record players in the age of CD & : DVD. Now that people can transcribe their old LPs to digital : formats, LP playback will become even rarer. : : oo, let's give the man a hand.. and the transcription is done by : ??? : : Both do-it-yourself and independent contractors. : : |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Marc Phillips wrote: Arny said: Our local legal genius Scott Wheeler apparently has a new alias. Presmably it is self-descriptive. No, it's a take on his bulldog, you ****ing moron. Scott Wheeler is tall and thin. Thin? I'm getting there. I'm still about 15 lbs over my college weight. Boon Scott Wheeler |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Dormer" wrote in message ... "Michael McKelvy" emitted : Crushing sameness, thumping bass, but then Lauren has ten times the voice. I couldn't say Lauren has "ten times the voice" of Alicia Keys, but she makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. Not much in the way of a mix. ??? Give me something like Astral Weeks, Moondance, or Santana and I'm a happy audiophile and a happy listener. Bleugh! It's what I grew up with, much like a major portion of what you like is. Compared to the mix on the Alicia Keyes album, they are light years ahead. Don't confuse sentimentality for objectivity ;-) I don't believe I am, I think they are mixed better, especially Astral Weeks. Morrison's voice got better IMO later, but the recording is top notch. It would be interesting (possibly only to me) if that album could be re-recorded using all the modern advantages of digital recording. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Dormer" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" emitted : "Paul Dormer" wrote in message m "Michael McKelvy" emitted : Sander deWaal Said : I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago: Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs with LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps. jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote: In article , The visceral reaction to the out-of-phase low frequency sounds (i.e. rumble) that flood the room, providing auditory cues of "you're in a large space", the intertrack IM distortions that create new images and enhance the originally recorded ones, the low random HF noise level that creates a sense of 'something is happening', etc, etc. IOW, if you want to run your entire musical experience through a musician's EFX box, get tubed audio equipment. No.. not in-other-words what you just said. The subject JJ was talking about was the euphonics of vinyl that make people feel good :-) Some people, not all. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote in message George M. Middius wrote in message JBorg said to ****-for-Brains: Do you still go to church on Sunday? Are you no longer Catholic? As we all know, Mr. ****... The well-known Middius coprophilia strikes again! How's the altar looking today ? |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... : "Paul Dormer" wrote in message : "Paul Dormer" wrote in message : : : "Michael McKelvy" emitted : : : Sander deWaal Said : : : I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago: : Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs : with LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps. : : jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote: : In article , : : The visceral reaction to the out-of-phase low frequency sounds : (i.e. rumble) that flood the room, providing auditory cues of : "you're in a large space", the intertrack IM distortions that : create new images and enhance the originally recorded ones, the : low random HF noise level that creates a sense of 'something : is happening', etc, etc. : : IOW, if you want to run your entire musical experience through a : musician's EFX box, get tubed audio equipment. : : No.. not in-other-words what you just said. : : Letsee what your logic is here, Dormer. My statement isn't because I said it : is true, but instead it is false because you said its false. So, who : promoted you to God? : : The subject JJ was talking about was the euphonics of vinyl that make : people feel good :-) : : I guess you'd die if you ever thought deeply about the cosmic meaning of : euphonics, or anything for that matter, Dormer. : : The basic fallacy of euphonic audio reproduction equipment is that it : diminishes the role of musicians and production people. Musicans are : supposed to make good sounding music. Production people are supposed to make : good sounding recordings. Listeners are supposed to have audio systems that : expose the inner goodness of music and recordings, not slavishly apply a : gloss coat to everything. But then, one could just as easily say it is slavish to belief the mixdown done by some people, somewhere, on some occasion is *the autority* on capturing the essence of the performance at hand. Rudy If you think that the artist(s) got what they want from the recording and the mix. It is true that many pop performers in particular say that their music means whatever you want it to mean. I never liked that POV. I want the artist to write music that has a meaning to him or her and share what that meaning is. I think one of the reasons for the incredible success of the song "Living Years" was that it was obvious what the POV was and that it touched a nearly universal feeling in people. YMMV. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Michael McKelvy wrote: "Paul Dormer" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" emitted : "Paul Dormer" wrote in message m "Michael McKelvy" emitted : Sander deWaal Said : I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago: Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs with LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps. jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote: In article , The visceral reaction to the out-of-phase low frequency sounds (i.e. rumble) that flood the room, providing auditory cues of "you're in a large space", the intertrack IM distortions that create new images and enhance the originally recorded ones, the low random HF noise level that creates a sense of 'something is happening', etc, etc. IOW, if you want to run your entire musical experience through a musician's EFX box, get tubed audio equipment. No.. not in-other-words what you just said. The subject JJ was talking about was the euphonics of vinyl that make people feel good :-) Some people, not all. He didn't say all, but you can't resist picking fights with others, can you? Anything for a flame, right Mikey? Your handlers should know better than to let you out of your cage, even for the weekends. Maybe your latest attacks and frothing at the mouth will convince them to give you 24=hour supervision. (Chuckle) ( |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Ruud Broens" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... The basic fallacy of euphonic audio reproduction equipment is that it diminishes the role of musicians and production people. Musicans are supposed to make good sounding music. Production people are supposed to make good sounding recordings. Listeners are supposed to have audio systems that expose the inner goodness of music and recordings, not slavishly apply a gloss coat to everything. But then, one could just as easily say it is slavish to belief the mixdown done by some people, somewhere, on some occasion is *the autority* on capturing the essence of the performance at hand. Obviously, you've never done much mixing, Ruud. I've mixed 100's of hours of music. Figure 8 hours and up of mixing time for every hour of finished recording.Tat little bit of experience leaves me at the tyro level, but I have some idea of how the game goes, based on hands-on expereince. If you blow it in the mix, you've very likely wounded the music in ways that no LP mastering job or so-called euphonic tubed amp can fix. IOW, if some people on some occasion blow the mixdown phase, you really have little choice but to take their work for what it is worth. That reminds me, I understand the first Billy Joel album Cold Spring Harbor was done with the tape that the mother disc was made from being set fast. This made his voice sound to high and the only way in the old days was to play it back on a TT and slow it down. Did they ever fix that? Sorry, I digressed. It is possible to do some fixup in the mastering step, but you can only go so far. Often one longs for the raw tracks to work with. Perhaps someday raw tracks of great legacy recordings will be released, so that people with the time and energy can have it their way. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"JBorg" wrote in message
m Arny Krueger wrote in message George M. Middius wrote in message JBorg said to ****-for-Brains: Do you still go to church on Sunday? Are you no longer Catholic? As we all know, Mr. ****... The well-known Middius coprophilia strikes again! How's the altar looking today ? Wrong again, Borglet. You ought to get out more. A lot of churches lack altars these days, even as a matter of conservative theology. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger" wrote in message JBorg" wrote in message Wrong again, Borglet. You ought to get out more. A lot of churches lack altars these days, even as a matter of conservative theology. I'm referring to altars that you fondle when the mothers aren't looking. ~~wink~ ~wink~ ~wink~~ |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message While it is admittedly hard to define nad rather vague, I think that you'll find that a lot of vinyl enthusiasts will tell you that compared to the sound of live performances, vinyl comes closer. IOW, it sounds more "real". That's part of the problem I have with such descriptions, how can more distorted sound more real? In reality, part of the problem here is due to your interminable confusion resulting from your inability to read simple sentence structure. I admit that as I read further into your many responses, the more torpidly freaky you become. You are so timid to absorb what you read and thus, senselessly mind**** yourself unnecessarily too many times. " ... IOW, it sounds more 'real'." See that? How many ways do you think should reality depict sound freq betw 20 - 20kHz ? I suspect this has to do with a mixture of both depth perception re. the soundstage in many cases, and also a sense of more "body", whether it be in the sound of the vocalist or of instruments. While these things are difficult to operationally define in terms of specific measurements, these observations appear to be quite common among vinyl enthusiasts. It also appears that this experience occurs among some younger listeners, who, after hearing some vinyl comparisons vs. digital playback of the same material, decide to invest in vinyl playback equipment. Another variable that sometimes is raised, although less so in newer digital recordings, is the well-known "digititis" or overly bright sound of some digital recordings compared to the same recordings on vinyl. This, of course, is a matter of taste, as well. And most likely has to with the fact that digital can record and playback such sounds with much more accuracy. Do you mean to say that digital can record and playback well-known "digititis" much more accurately? Then the problem becomes how well can the speakers handle such sounds. How well do you think they should? |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
JBorg wrote: Michael McKelvy" wrote in message Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message While it is admittedly hard to define nad rather vague, I think that you'll find that a lot of vinyl enthusiasts will tell you that compared to the sound of live performances, vinyl comes closer. IOW, it sounds more "real". That's part of the problem I have with such descriptions, how can more distorted sound more real? In reality, part of the problem here is due to your interminable confusion resulting from your inability to read simple sentence structure. I admit that as I read further into your many responses, the more torpidly freaky you become. You are so timid to absorb what you read and thus, senselessly mind**** yourself unnecessarily too many times. " ... IOW, it sounds more 'real'." See that? How many ways do you think should reality depict sound freq betw 20 - 20kHz ? I suspect this has to do with a mixture of both depth perception re. the soundstage in many cases, and also a sense of more "body", whether it be in the sound of the vocalist or of instruments. While these things are difficult to operationally define in terms of specific measurements, these observations appear to be quite common among vinyl enthusiasts. It also appears that this experience occurs among some younger listeners, who, after hearing some vinyl comparisons vs. digital playback of the same material, decide to invest in vinyl playback equipment. Another variable that sometimes is raised, although less so in newer digital recordings, is the well-known "digititis" or overly bright sound of some digital recordings compared to the same recordings on vinyl. This, of course, is a matter of taste, as well. And most likely has to with the fact that digital can record and playback such sounds with much more accuracy. Do you mean to say that digital can record and playback well-known "digititis" much more accurately? Then the problem becomes how well can the speakers handle such sounds. How well do you think they should? Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this can be measured on various instruments. And of course, those with an anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl based on measurements alone. OTOH, many listeners apparently don't hear that distortion at their listening positions, and therefore continue to invest in both vinyl (even when digital copies of hte smae releases are available - as is the case with many popular recording artists whose current output is available on 180 gram vinyl), and more importantly, new analog playback equipment. Nor does this seem to be partricularly related to age, since there are a number of younger viewers - both on this forum and others - that have reported a preference for vinyl playback in general. Distortions that show up on a electronic measuring instrument are not necessarily perceivable by listeners who have not preconditioned to expect distortion - any more than the so-called "audible distortion" cited by a few anti-tube bigots is audible to most owners ot that equipment. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this can be measured on various instruments. It can also be heard. And of course, those with an anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl based on measurements alone. The CD format has zero audible inherent distortion. The LP format has readily audible inherent distortion. If you read the technical literature related to vinyl, you will find confirmation of the sad truth about vinyl. Vinyl was supplanted for a reason - it was an audibly defective technology that had reached the end of its development cycle. OTOH, many listeners apparently don't hear that distortion at their listening positions, and therefore continue to invest in both vinyl (even when digital copies of hte smae releases are available - as is the case with many popular recording artists whose current output is available on 180 gram vinyl), and more importantly, new analog playback equipment. It's just a matter of having ears that are forgiving enough. Loud noises and advanced age are common means for obtaining ears that are forgiving enough to tolerate the audible distortions inherent in vinyl. Nor does this seem to be partricularly related to age, since there are a number of younger viewers - both on this forum and others - that have reported a preference for vinyl playback in general. OK, so there are such things as young steamfitters, construction workers and affcianados of loud rock music. Ear damage among the young is rampant today. Distortions that show up on a electronic measuring instrument are not necessarily perceivable by listeners who have not preconditioned to expect distortion - any more than the so-called "audible distortion" cited by a few anti-tube bigots is audible to most owners ot that equipment. This is a giant run-on sentence. Who can imagine what it might mean? |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this can be measured on various instruments. It can also be heard. And of course, those with an anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl based on measurements alone. The CD format has zero audible inherent distortion. The LP format has readily audible inherent distortion. If you read the technical literature related to vinyl, you will find confirmation of the sad truth about vinyl. Vinyl was supplanted for a reason - it was an audibly defective technology that had reached the end of its development cycle. OTOH, many listeners apparently don't hear that distortion at their listening positions, and therefore continue to invest in both vinyl (even when digital copies of hte smae releases are available - as is the case with many popular recording artists whose current output is available on 180 gram vinyl), and more importantly, new analog playback equipment. It's just a matter of having ears that are forgiving enough. Loud noises and advanced age are common means for obtaining ears that are forgiving enough to tolerate the audible distortions inherent in vinyl. Which would not explain the fact that young ears are purchasing both vinyl and the means for its playback. Record producers that munufacturer 150g and 180g vinyl from current recording artists are not planning to lose money by issuing their products with the hopes that an older audience will buy it. Similarly, the active used record market on both eBay and in many major cities is probably not catering to an older audience that already has many of the records they sell. Nor does this seem to be partricularly related to age, since there are a number of younger viewers - both on this forum and others - that have reported a preference for vinyl playback in general. OK, so there are such things as young steamfitters, construction workers and affcianados of loud rock music. Ear damage among the young is rampant today. And there is no evidence indicating that this is the younger audience purchasing vinyl or the equipment to play it. One could also argue that those young folks imparied by large rock are the purchasers of the latest CDs since that's what their boomboxes play. And if their hearing is impaired, why bother with more than 1 type of media? Distortions that show up on a electronic measuring instrument are not necessarily perceivable by listeners who have not preconditioned to expect distortion - any more than the so-called "audible distortion" cited by a few anti-tube bigots is audible to most owners ot that equipment. This is a giant run-on sentence. Who can imagine what it might mean? Anybody that has better things to do than end a post with a gratuitous insult just to keep one's record of personal insults current. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this can be measured on various instruments. It can also be heard. And of course, those with an anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl based on measurements alone. The CD format has zero audible inherent distortion. The LP format has readily audible inherent distortion. If you read the technical literature related to vinyl, you will find confirmation of the sad truth about vinyl. Vinyl was supplanted for a reason - it was an audibly defective technology that had reached the end of its development cycle. So says the amateur. Top pros who make living by producing the best sounding recordings and masterings like Stan Ricker quite disagree. Guys like Stan say that there is audible loss of information from master tape to CD. He also says the LP is transfer is often preferable. But what does he know? I'm sure you have more experience transfering master tapes to CD and LP than he does. I'm sure you have a much more widely respected than he is. LOL. OTOH, many listeners apparently don't hear that distortion at their listening positions, and therefore continue to invest in both vinyl (even when digital copies of hte smae releases are available - as is the case with many popular recording artists whose current output is available on 180 gram vinyl), and more importantly, new analog playback equipment. It's just a matter of having ears that are forgiving enough. Loud noises and advanced age are common means for obtaining ears that are forgiving enough to tolerate the audible distortions inherent in vinyl. Really? Want to put it to the test? I'll bet $1,000.00 that my hearing is superior to yours. Come on, put up or shut up. I'll give you two to one odds. I'll bet $2,000.00 against your $1,000.00. Let's see if you stand behind your bull****. Nor does this seem to be partricularly related to age, since there are a number of younger viewers - both on this forum and others - that have reported a preference for vinyl playback in general. OK, so there are such things as young steamfitters, construction workers and affcianados of loud rock music. Ear damage among the young is rampant today. Put up or shut up. 2 to 1 odds Arny. Scott Wheeler |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Bruce J. Richman wrote in message JBorg wrote: Michael McKelvy wrote in message Then the problem becomes how well can the speakers handle such sounds. How well do you think they should? Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this can be measured on various instruments. And of course, those with an anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl based on measurements alone. OTOH, many listeners apparently don't hear that distortion at their listening positions, and therefore continue to invest in both vinyl (even when digital copies of hte smae releases are available - as is the case with many popular recording artists whose current output is available on 180 gram vinyl), and more importantly, new analog playback equipment. Nor does this seem to be partricularly related to age, since there are a number of younger viewers - both on this forum and others - that have reported a preference for vinyl playback in general. Distortions that show up on a electronic measuring instrument are not necessarily perceivable by listeners who have not preconditioned to expect distortion - any more than the so-called "audible distortion" cited by a few anti-tube bigots is audible to most owners ot that equipment. Yes, and I like to add that experience listener are able to listen selectively and focus their ears to the distinctive sound of certain audio gears that suit their (specific) preferences. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
wrote S8, is that you? Arny Krueger wrote: Bruce J. Richman wrote The CD format has zero audible inherent distortion. The LP format has readily audible inherent distortion. If you read the technical literature related to vinyl, you will find confirmation of the sad truth about vinyl. Vinyl was supplanted for a reason - it was an audibly defective technology that had reached the end of its development cycle. So says the amateur. Top pros who make living by producing the best sounding recordings and masterings like Stan Ricker quite disagree. Guys like Stan say that there is audible loss of information from master tape to CD. He also says the LP is transfer is often preferable. But what does he know? I'm sure you have more experience transfering master tapes to CD and LP than he does. I'm sure you have a much more widely respected than he is. LOL. Absolutely agree. I see no chance that a vinyl bigot would ever conform to what you just said. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: It's just a matter of having ears that are forgiving enough. Loud noises and advanced age are common means for obtaining ears that are forgiving enough to tolerate the audible distortions inherent in vinyl. Which would not explain the fact that young ears are purchasing both vinyl and the means for its playback. Except of course it does, because young ears are well-known to be exposed to loud sounds. A lot of vinyl that is being sold to young ears are being used by turntablists for scratching and back-cuing. Said operations take place in dance clubs where the sound levels are pushing or exceeding OSHA standards for ear damage. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this can be measured on various instruments. It can also be heard. And of course, those with an anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl based on measurements alone. The CD format has zero audible inherent distortion. The LP format has readily audible inherent distortion. If you read the technical literature related to vinyl, you will find confirmation of the sad truth about vinyl. Vinyl was supplanted for a reason - it was an audibly defective technology that had reached the end of its development cycle. So says the amateur. So says the JAES. Top pros who make living by producing the best sounding recordings and masterings like Stan Ricker quite disagree. Some old dogs don't want to learn new tricks. Guys like Stan say that there is audible loss of information from master tape to CD. AFAIK, Stan Ricker is quite a bit older than I am. I seriously doubt that he has much critical listening ability left. Word has it that he's turned hands-on mastering over to younger ears. He also says the LP is transfer is often preferable. It's a business, Scott. But what does he know? He wants to sell vinyl. It's what he does. I'm sure you have more experience transfering master tapes to CD and LP than he does. I'm sure you have a much more widely respected than he is. LOL. Posture on, dude! OTOH, many listeners apparently don't hear that distortion at their listening positions, and therefore continue to invest in both vinyl (even when digital copies of hte smae releases are available - as is the case with many popular recording artists whose current output is available on 180 gram vinyl), and more importantly, new analog playback equipment. It's just a matter of having ears that are forgiving enough. Loud noises and advanced age are common means for obtaining ears that are forgiving enough to tolerate the audible distortions inherent in vinyl. Really? Want to put it to the test? I'll bet $1,000.00 that my hearing is superior to yours. Scott, I'll bet that your hearing is far better then Stan Ricker's. He's got to be pushing 70 or more. Come on, put up or shut up. I'll give you two to one odds. I'll bet $2,000.00 against your $1,000.00. Let's see if you stand behind your bull****. There's no BS here Scott. I make no claims about having the best ears in the world. However there's the slight matter of the billions of actual people who dumped vinyl for digital. Nor does this seem to be partricularly related to age, since there are a number of younger viewers - both on this forum and others - that have reported a preference for vinyl playback in general. OK, so there are such things as young steamfitters, construction workers and affcianados of loud rock music. Ear damage among the young is rampant today. Put up or shut up. 2 to 1 odds Arny. I'll settle for your court costs on your failed libel suit against me, Scott. ;-) |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this can be measured on various instruments. It can also be heard. And of course, those with an anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl based on measurements alone. The CD format has zero audible inherent distortion. The LP format has readily audible inherent distortion. If you read the technical literature related to vinyl, you will find confirmation of the sad truth about vinyl. Vinyl was supplanted for a reason - it was an audibly defective technology that had reached the end of its development cycle. So says the amateur. So says the JAES. So says you. The amateur with an agenda. Top pros who make living by producing the best sounding recordings and masterings like Stan Ricker quite disagree. Some old dogs don't want to learn new tricks. That would have nothing to do with Stan Ricker. Or do you think he has never mastered a SOTA CD? Get a clue. Guys like Stan say that there is audible loss of information from master tape to CD. AFAIK, Stan Ricker is quite a bit older than I am. I seriously doubt that he has much critical listening ability left. Word has it that he's turned hands-on mastering over to younger ears. Nice try at attacking the man. A few problems with your silly attack on Stan. He's been doing this for quite some time so he has made many a comparison well before his 70th birthday, His track record is unimpeachable so any attack on his hearing is a joke. And if he is hearing information loss at 70 from the CDs he masters compared to the original masters then that would only support the notion that the loss is substantial. He also says the LP is transfer is often preferable. It's a business, Scott. So is mastering CDs. Duh. But what does he know? He wants to sell vinyl. It's what he does. Her doesn't sell vinyl dimwit. He masters vinyl. But he also masters CDs I'm sure you have more experience transfering master tapes to CD and LP than he does. I'm sure you have a much more widely respected than he is. LOL. Posture on, dude! Reality bites you in the ass again dude. OTOH, many listeners apparently don't hear that distortion at their listening positions, and therefore continue to invest in both vinyl (even when digital copies of hte smae releases are available - as is the case with many popular recording artists whose current output is available on 180 gram vinyl), and more importantly, new analog playback equipment. It's just a matter of having ears that are forgiving enough. Loud noises and advanced age are common means for obtaining ears that are forgiving enough to tolerate the audible distortions inherent in vinyl. Really? Want to put it to the test? I'll bet $1,000.00 that my hearing is superior to yours. Scott, I'll bet that your hearing is far better then Stan Ricker's. He's got to be pushing 70 or more. Lack of reading comprehension noted. as someone who generally prefers vinyl your post questions my hearing ability and suggests your hearing ability is superior to anybody's with a preference for vinyl. So put up or shut up. Prove that your hearing is better than mine. 2 to 1 odds dude. Come on, put up or shut up. I'll give you two to one odds. I'll bet $2,000.00 against your $1,000.00. Let's see if you stand behind your bull****. There's no BS here Scott. Yes there is Arny. The your BS poasturing about the hearing ability of those who prefer vinyl. I make no claims about having the best ears in the world. No you just claim that those who prefer vinyl must have inferior hearing to yours. Prove it. I am waving 2 grand infront of your face. However there's the slight matter of the billions of actual people who dumped vinyl for digital. No, it is irrelevant. Are you stupid enough to buy this ridiculous argument or are you simply not confident in the merits of a legitimate argument? Either way you lose. Nor does this seem to be partricularly related to age, since there are a number of younger viewers - both on this forum and others - that have reported a preference for vinyl playback in general. OK, so there are such things as young steamfitters, construction workers and affcianados of loud rock music. Ear damage among the young is rampant today. Put up or shut up. 2 to 1 odds Arny. I'll settle for your court costs on your failed libel suit against me, Scott. ;-) Posture on dude. Bottom line is you can't back your bull****. Scott Wheeler |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Bruce J. Richman wrote in message
JBorg wrote: Michael McKelvy wrote in message Then the problem becomes how well can the speakers handle such sounds. How well do you think they should? Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this can be measured on various instruments. And of course, those with an anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl based on measurements alone. You have audable distortion, lack of dynamics, and of course, the ever present hiss and pop and crackle of the medium itself. It's not even close. Good tape(hi-fi vcr or simmilar) eats vinyl for lunch and CD is much better. I think that you really need to listen to your records again and see how much noisier they are. People forget. People get nostalgic. Take a 1964 Mustang. Looks nice, but the fact is, it's a piece of junk to actually drive compared to our never vehicles. A brand new Civic will equal or better it in almost every way, and as far as driveability goes, it's no contest which is a smoother and quieter ride. What was great then - try using it now. We just thought it was great because coming from 1970's era cassettes, 8-track, and older technologies like wire recorders, vinyl sounded better. But that was then. This is now. That you are even discussing which sounds better(let alone the convience factor) is amazing. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Joseph Oberlander wrote: Bruce J. Richman wrote in message JBorg wrote: Michael McKelvy wrote in message Then the problem becomes how well can the speakers handle such sounds. How well do you think they should? Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this can be measured on various instruments. And of course, those with an anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl based on measurements alone. You have audable distortion, lack of dynamics, and of course, the ever present hiss and pop and crackle of the medium itself. It's not even close. Good tape(hi-fi vcr or simmilar) eats vinyl for lunch and CD is much better. I think that you really need to listen to your records again and see how much noisier they are. I listen to them on a regular basis and compare various LPs and CDs of the same title in search of the best sound available for any given title. CD usually are quite inferior despite the surface noise that can be found on various LPs. Of course that noise varies from LP to LP. People forget. People get nostalgic. Take a 1964 Mustang. Looks nice, but the fact is, it's a piece of junk to actually drive compared to our never vehicles. A brand new Civic will equal or better it in almost every way, and as far as driveability goes, it's no contest which is a smoother and quieter ride. It's not about nostalgia. I get nostalgic about some things too. I know that it is nostalgia though. What was great then - try using it now. My Leica M-6 comes to mind. I'll be doing some test shots with some B&W film that is throw back to the 30s and 40s along with some film that is a throw back to the 20s. We just thought it was great because coming from 1970's era cassettes, 8-track, and older technologies like wire recorders, vinyl sounded better. Um, vinyl preceded cassettes and 8 tracks. your argument just fell apart. But that was then. This is now. That you are even discussing which sounds better(let alone the convience factor) is amazing. That you aren't is amazing. Use your ears man. Scott Wheeler |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... OK Art, so you like really bad-driving cars only because they are old. Fits pretty well with your love for tubes. No, then I would like all old cars. I have no use for old Corvairs, Falcons, Chevy II's, Beetles or Valiants. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Joseph Oberlander wrote ? Bruce J. Richman wrote JBorg wrote: Michael McKelvy wrote Then the problem becomes how well can the speakers handle such sounds. How well do you think they should? Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this can be measured on various instruments. And of course, those with an anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl based on measurements alone. You have audable distortion, lack of dynamics, and of course, the ever present hiss and pop and crackle of the medium itself. It's not even close. Good tape(hi-fi vcr or simmilar) eats vinyl for lunch and CD is much better. I think that you really need to listen to your records again and see how much noisier they are. People forget. People get nostalgic. Take a 1964 Mustang. Looks nice, but the fact is, it's a piece of junk to actually drive compared to our never vehicles. A brand new Civic will equal or better it in almost every way, and as far as driveability goes, it's no contest which is a smoother and quieter ride. What was great then - try using it now. We just thought it was great because coming from 1970's era cassettes, 8-track, and older technologies like wire recorders, vinyl sounded better. But that was then. This is now. That you are even discussing which sounds better(let alone the convience factor) is amazing. I am not so sure what pertains to who over here. And what is where should be or who is speaking specifically about what should be. Mustang, Civics and 8-tracks-- I like them all. Vinyl is good for the soul. In the 1970's, I remember disco. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: I have a friend with a perfectly-restored 428 Cougar of the era. It's a lot of fun but its a real beast to drive. It was fast in its day but its modern competitor is quikcer and faster, gets better fuel economy, runs smoother, requires far less maintenance, will probably last longer in equal use, is far more pollution free, and completely blows it away when it comes to ride, stopping, and handling. Isn't technology great? My dad's Buick has almost as much power as a stock 60's GTO and weighs less. 0-60 times are almost identical. You'd never guess that it is as fast given the way it looks. Then there are real vehicles like the WRX and AMG Mercedes and so on that go 0-60 in a heartbeat. Drive the new Infiniti G Coupe. It's shocking, actually. 300HP with stick, rwd, and suspension that almost is as good as a 911 - at half the price. Nothing in the 60s or 70s outside of a real racecar comes close to what you can buy at your local dealer and drive home. And it's not considered a "sportscar" or "exotic" - just another Infiniti. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Joseph Oberlander wrote: wrote: I listen to them on a regular basis and compare various LPs and CDs of the same title in search of the best sound available for any given title. CD usually are quite inferior despite the surface noise that can be found on various LPs. Of course that noise varies from LP to LP. Ad 99.99% of the world disagrees with you. Where did you get that figure? What ever the percentege may be it is likely quite proportional to the percentage of people who have not heard good vinyl played back on world class TTs. I thought CDs were much better than LPs until I ran into a high end turntable on a good high end system and then made comparisons. Given the fact that most of those people have never had that experience the numbers are meaningless. The noise is the biggest detractor there is - it's like watching a tv station that has ghosting versus a clean one from a cable TV feed. I don't agree with your analogy. Certianly if the noise is excessive it is a problem. It isn't always excessive.Average surface noise on a high end system is not nearly so intrusive (I'm not even talking about SOTA pressings here just average ones.) On a good system with a world class TT the noise is quite seperate from the music in the soundstage. That makes it far more tolerable for me. Of course I'd rather not have it. The thing is there is more to it than just surface noise. If all else were equal every time then that would be the deciding factor. That isn't the reality of things though. There are other problems that are common on CDs that are more intrucive to me than average surface noise of an LP. Clarity of sound is a measurement of "quality", no matter what spin you put on it. Many LPs have far greater clarity than their CD counterparts. But I agree that clarity is *a* measure of quality amoung many measures of quality in audio. If I didn't think so I wouldn't own Sound Lab A3s. And god forbid you get a scratch on it - you are hosed. Don't use them as diner plates. Basic care will prevent record ruining scratches. click - click - click... It also wears out over time, while I have a 15 year old CD(I think I have older ones) that plays just like it did when it was new. I have some 50 year old records that do the same. Scott Wheeler |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
ups.com Where did you get that figure? What ever the percentege may be it is likely quite proportional to the percentage of people who have not heard good vinyl played back on world class TTs. I thought CDs were much better than LPs until I ran into a high end turntable on a good high end system and then made comparisons. The good news is that on the day someone tried that spiel on me, my ears were working just fine. The tic-tic-tic, hiss and rumble were still there. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net Arny Krueger wrote: I have a friend with a perfectly-restored 428 Cougar of the era. It's a lot of fun but its a real beast to drive. It was fast in its day but its modern competitor is quikcer and faster, gets better fuel economy, runs smoother, requires far less maintenance, will probably last longer in equal use, is far more pollution free, and completely blows it away when it comes to ride, stopping, and handling. Isn't technology great? Yes. My dad's Buick has almost as much power as a stock 60's GTO and weighs less. 0-60 times are almost identical. You'd never guess that it is as fast given the way it looks. Then there are real vehicles like the WRX and AMG Mercedes and so on that go 0-60 in a heartbeat. Yes. Drive the new Infiniti G Coupe. It's shocking, actually. 300HP with stick, rwd, and suspension that almost is as good as a 911 - at half the price. I wish. Nothing in the 60s or 70s outside of a real racecar comes close to what you can buy at your local dealer and drive home. And it's not considered a "sportscar" or "exotic" - just another Infiniti. Agreed. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:03:15 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Scott, the fact that you want to compare your ears to those of a guy who is almost 60 says a lot. Could you set the mark lower? Well yes you could, I guess. You could challenge Art. So, you're in the catagory of Rupert Neve and Walter Sear. So when you were talking about them being "over the hill", it was really just self-projection, right? BTW, I know that this will go right over your head, but here's a very perceptive quote from Walter Becker of Steely Dan at Mix Magazine ( speaking about Walter Sear reminded me of Steely Dan): What are some of your feelings about surround sound and high-res release formats? Becker: Regarding surround sound, I know musicians too well to want them behind my back. But because of the additional speaker separation, the surround mixes I've worked on can make 2-channel sound somewhat low-fi by comparison. But I still prefer stereo overall. The music holds together better. It's funny, but as the sonics improve, the focus on music doesn't improve. For example, there are a lot of ways to record piano, and a lot of people do much better piano recordings than Rudy Van Gelder ever did. But when you listen to a Van Gelder piano recording, you're listening to the sound of the guy's piano and the notes in his solo. When you listen to more hi-fi recordings of pianos, you might hear more high-end detail and clarity, but you may be listening more to the overtones of the piano and less focused on the intention of the musician, which is in the fundamental pitches of the notes, rather than the often-clangorous overtones. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:14:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Nothing in the 60s or 70s outside of a real racecar comes close to what you can buy at your local dealer and drive home. And it's not considered a "sportscar" or "exotic" - just another Infiniti. Agreed. Of course, there are other intangibles at work when it comes to cars. I think the last statement comes close to boiling it down quite well - "just another Infiniti". Nothing wrong with that per se. However, there's a different level of satisfaction that's derived when maintaining a piece of auto history, as well as a certain evocative vibe that transends such things as skid pad performance or high tech seating. Nothing wrong with people who don't care about such things, but there's also nothing wrong with people who like vintage cars either. I'm comforted when I see such cars on the road. I remember driving my bright red '64 Chevy Impala SS 327 in Germany in the late 80s. That was fun. Of course, finding parking for it was quite difficult, since the car is 20 feet long. That was part of the fun though. The gas mileage was a killer though. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
mp3 for highend purpose? Read on | High End Audio | |||
mp3 quality compared with cd? read on | Car Audio | |||
Do any DVD receivers play MP3s on DVD-/+R or DVD-/+RW yet? | Car Audio | |||
Doppler Distortion - Fact or Fiction | Pro Audio | |||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something) | High End Audio |