In article writes:

Why should I have to "focus" OUT the noise when it's annoying and
distracting?

If you're being distracted and annoyed by the noise, you're not
listening to the music. Maybe it isn't worth listening to. I never
consciously tune out noise, but if I'm listening, you could ask me if
I heard any noise (I think we're still talking about hiss here) I'd
probably say "what noise?"

And why throw straw men in to the argument? Clutching for straws? :-)

Not sure what you mean here. I don't find that noise detracts from my
listening experience. Sure, it's nice to not have any, but if it's
there, you might as well live with it as complain.

Yep, and those horribly expensive machines were crap compared to todays
equipment. How much time we wasted just aligning the things to get even
minimal performance. And there really WAS a lot of crap out there by todays
standards, but it was the best we had at the time. And so expensive it HAD
to be good. I still admire the mechanics of a Nagra I owned, but not the
actual sound. Same for the Studers I used. Would I want to use them now? No
way!

Obviously you won't be convinced otherwise. I'm not trying to convince
you of anything anyway, just stating how I perceive things.

I think your rose colored glasses are obsuring your hindsight. I guess
whoever said "nostalgia ain't what it used to be" was wrong in your case.

I'm not speaking for the sake of nostalgia. I use what I have and what
works. I'm not in this for the money.

No he said it was "bullsh!t and he "strongly disagreed"!!!!
I still have no clue what your postion is, assuming you know yourself.

I'm neutral. I don't think anyone who's successfully recording with a
modern "noiseless, distortionless" digital system should give it up in
favor of a cranky analog recorder. But, too, I don't think that anyone
who's successfully recording with an analog recorder should give it up
in favor of a digital system.

Why do you think some producers and engineers still prefer to record
analog. Sometimes it's actually faster to work that way, and I'm sure
they think it sounds better. Why argue with success?

What crap to compare mega dollar studio's of the fifties, with a few hundred
dollar bedroom studio of the present.

But all too many people believe in this comparison. The manufacturers
won't argue.

The fact that you even consider doing it, just proves how good the current
consumer recording gear is.

Actually, I'm really impressed with current comsumer gear. I have a CD
player in my living room, even. However, I don't transfer all my LPs
and tapes to CD. Too much trouble.

And frankly some of the worst sounds I've heard are coming out of the mega
dollar studios of today. The equipment is *NOT* the problem.

I'll agree with that.

How about all those demo's recorded on 4 track cassette
porta-studio machines in the seventies. Just the memory makes me puke!

I've actually heard some pretty good stuff come off of just that sort
of equipment. Not competiton for megabucks productions for sure, but
better than I would expect. When people worked with only 4 tracks with
limited capability to bounce tracks they thought about what they were
recording and had a very good idea of when the project was finished.
The overall result was very often better musically than a project
constructed on a bedroom computer. And when it wasn't, nobody made
pretentions that it was. Today everyone thinks he's a star, and they
aren't, no matter what kind of equipment they record on. But that's a
totally different issue.

I believe that Al Schmitt makes perfectly good recordings using
Nuendeo, but I think that the reason why he can, and does, is because
he knows what good sounds like and doesn't screw around trying to
perfect things. But then he doesn't use a $200 sound card, either, and
works in an acoustically good environment, with good monitoring, and
40 years of experience behind him.

All you are saying is that you would prefer it if recording was the sole
province of a few studio's as it used to be once upon a time.

I never said that. But if it were so, we wouldn't be presented with so
much crap that we don't have to listen to.

We are SOOOO lucky today IMO.

Enjoy your good fortune. I hope you live long enough to listen to 300
new CDs every week. All the way through. And enjoy every one of them.

Geez, is Australia the cranky audio bigot capitol of the world these
days? Why don't you and Phil have a beer or two together.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1093369107k@trad...
In article
writes:

Why should I have to "focus" OUT the noise when it's annoying and
distracting?
If you're being distracted and annoyed by the noise, you're not
listening to the music. Maybe it isn't worth listening to. I never
consciously tune out noise, but if I'm listening, you could ask me if
I heard any noise (I think we're still talking about hiss here) I'd
probably say "what noise?"

Yes I find that is happening as I get older too. I still can't see the point
in defending unnecessary noise though, and always try to minimise it when
recording. Even if I can't hear it, someone else will complain if I don't.
And I would agree with them.

And why throw straw men in to the argument? Clutching for straws? :-)
Not sure what you mean here.

Of course not, you snipped what I was referring to. Here it is

In fact, if it was the goal today, would anyone be using AutoTune?

Not got a lot to do with the discussion at hand IMO. One does not HAVE to
use autotune. One cannot avoid noise with the old tape recorders and tapes
of the fifties era which is what we WERE discussing.

I don't find that noise detracts from my
listening experience. Sure, it's nice to not have any, but if it's
there, you might as well live with it as complain.

Do you say the same about distortion, wow and flutter, non linear frequency
response etc??
If so, then you can keep listening to a $5 radio and leave HiFi for those
who care.

Obviously you won't be convinced otherwise. I'm not trying to convince
you of anything anyway, just stating how I perceive things.

You are welcome to your opinion of course.

But, too, I don't think that anyone
who's successfully recording with an analog recorder should give it up
in favor of a digital system.

It depends on who else has to listen to the result IMO.

Why do you think some producers and engineers still prefer to record
analog.

They are after that particular effect or just want to be different.

Sometimes it's actually faster to work that way,

I can't possibly see how, and I have many years experience with both.

and I'm sure they think it sounds better.

I'm sure they do. Good luck to them. Doesn't mean they are right of course.

Why argue with success?

Exactly, and it is obvious that digital recording is much more successful
these days by any measure. The fifties are long passed.

How about all those demo's recorded on 4 track cassette
porta-studio machines in the seventies. Just the memory makes me puke!
I've actually heard some pretty good stuff come off of just that sort
of equipment. Not competiton for megabucks productions for sure, but
better than I would expect. When people worked with only 4 tracks with
limited capability to bounce tracks they thought about what they were
recording and had a very good idea of when the project was finished.

IME there was just as many crap artists, only the good artists sounded crap
too.

The overall result was very often better musically than a project
constructed on a bedroom computer. And when it wasn't, nobody made
pretentions that it was. Today everyone thinks he's a star, and they
aren't, no matter what kind of equipment they record on. But that's a
totally different issue.

Exactly.

All you are saying is that you would prefer it if recording was the sole
province of a few studio's as it used to be once upon a time.
I never said that. But if it were so, we wouldn't be presented with so
much crap that we don't have to listen to.

There's always been a ton of crap, and as you say we don't have to listen to
it, or at least we can avoid a lot of it.

We are SOOOO lucky today IMO.
Enjoy your good fortune. I hope you live long enough to listen to 300
new CDs every week. All the way through. And enjoy every one of them.

Me too, but I like to listen to the ones I already have too. I don't think
there are that many hours in a week :-)

Geez, is Australia the cranky audio bigot capitol of the world these
days? Why don't you and Phil have a beer or two together.

Are you kidding!!!!!!!!
And calling *ME* a cranky audio bigot is like the pot calling the kettle
black.

TonyP.

"TonyP" wrote in message
u...
Exactly, and it is obvious that digital recording is much more successful
these days by any measure. The fifties are long passed.

Actually, at least as of a few years ago, the percentage of households
having a CD player has never caught up with the percentage having record
players.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

In article writes:

I still can't see the point
in defending unnecessary noise though

You're still reading your point into what I'm saying. I'm not
defending unnecessary noise. I wouldn't intentially add it. But if
noise is a consequence of using something that I think makes a
recording sound better, then I don't worry about it. Life is full of
compromises.

In fact, if it was the goal today, would anyone be using AutoTune?

Not got a lot to do with the discussion at hand IMO.

It has everything to do with it. You brought up "accuracy" which, in
my book means close as possible reproduction of what happened - no
worse, but no better either. If you re-tune a singer, it's no longer
an accurate representation of what was sung. Now I'm not against
making something inaccurate if I believe that overall it will be
better.

One does not HAVE to use autotune.

One does, today, if one has a singer with inaccurate pitch. Even
many singers who are very close to pitch want to get closer to
perfection.

One cannot avoid noise with the old tape recorders and tapes

That's true. But there are ways to reduce it, and there may be
advantages to using tape (and who said it had to be old tape and an
old recorder?) that offset noise, as long as one isn't focused on the
noise to the exclusion of anything else. Now I wouldn't run a digital
recording made with crummy converters in a bad room with mediocre mics
through a 30 year old consumer TEAC with a reel of tape that I
salvaged from a yard sale and call it "analog warming." But I might
mix to my Otari with a fresh reel of whatever kind of tape you can
still buy and see what it sounds like. I would expect that it might be
a little noisier than mixing to something digital, but overall it
might sound better.

I don't find that noise detracts from my
listening experience.

Do you say the same about distortion, wow and flutter, non linear frequency
response etc??

It depends on the extent, and how carefully I'm listening. Boombox
distortion is very unpleasant. Wow is unpleasant on solo piano or
guitar, but if I heard wow on a band I'd fix my recorder. Frequency
response is kind of arbitrary anyway. If it's really unbalanced, it
can be easily corrected.

If so, then you can keep listening to a $5 radio and leave HiFi for those
who care.

Thank you.

But, too, I don't think that anyone
who's successfully recording with an analog recorder should give it up
in favor of a digital system.

It depends on who else has to listen to the result IMO.

Like maybe a satisfied client? If you have a dissatisfied client then
you have to make him happy. If you were in my studio and wanted to mix
to a computer instead of analog tape, I woudn't argue with you. I
probably wouldn't even suggest that we try it. Or might if I felt
strongly that it might improve your material. But I wouldn't insist.
If you wanted to record multitrack digital because you didn't have the
budget for 10 reels of 2" tape, I wouldn't argue there either. But if
you asked me what would be best, I'd listen to what you had to record
and make my recommendation based on the project.

Why do you think some producers and engineers still prefer to record
analog.

They are after that particular effect or just want to be different.

Drop the last half and you get my point exactly.

Exactly, and it is obvious that digital recording is much more successful
these days by any measure. The fifties are long passed.

Hard to compare. If you're basing your measure of success on how many
people are recording digital at all, then sure. Affordability breeds
mediocrity. If you're based on how many major recording projects are
based on digital rather than analog, that's a little harder because
many of those projects have some analog recording or mixing or
processing involved. You read "and we did this one entirely in Nuendo
and I'll never go back" in Mix because Steinberg advertises. There are
definite advantages to working with a DAW, and a smart engineer or
producer takes advantage of the best of all worlds as long as he can
keep the project within budget. People still seem to like to record
drums and guitars on analog tape even if the next step is to dump it
to ProTools. And quite often analog outputs from the ProTools system
go through an analog consoe for mixing. And the mix might go to
simultaneous digital and analog recorders so they can choose which
one sounds best for each song.

Some projects are indeed totally digital, some are not. But it's the
wise person who makes the choices based on the project (which includes
the budget) and not by which one has the best technical
specifications. It's a different world out there once you get out of
your basement.

When people start writing "crap" every couple of sentences, I tune
out. Sorry guy.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message
...
"TonyP" wrote in message
u...
Exactly, and it is obvious that digital recording is much more
successful
these days by any measure. The fifties are long passed.

Actually, at least as of a few years ago, the percentage of households
having a CD player has never caught up with the percentage having record
players.

*QUITE* a few years ago methinks. In fact I would be willing to bet the
number of households still *using* a turntable at all is miniscule these
days.
Please provide some evidence to support you theory.

TonyP.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1093463993k@trad...

In article
writes:

I still can't see the point
in defending unnecessary noise though

You're still reading your point into what I'm saying. I'm not
defending unnecessary noise. I wouldn't intentially add it. But if
noise is a consequence of using something that I think makes a
recording sound better, then I don't worry about it. Life is full of
compromises.

You have yet to provide *ANY* technical reason why the sound should be
better. The added noise CAN be considered to have made it WORSE though.

In fact, if it was the goal today, would anyone be using AutoTune?
Not got a lot to do with the discussion at hand IMO.
It has everything to do with it. You brought up "accuracy" which, in
my book means close as possible reproduction of what happened - no
worse, but no better either. If you re-tune a singer, it's no longer
an accurate representation of what was sung. Now I'm not against
making something inaccurate if I believe that overall it will be
better.
One does not HAVE to use autotune.
One does, today, if one has a singer with inaccurate pitch. Even
many singers who are very close to pitch want to get closer to
perfection.

One does *NOT*. You now have an OPTION that you didn't back then.


One cannot avoid noise with the old tape recorders and tapes
That's true. But there are ways to reduce it, and there may be
advantages to using tape (and who said it had to be old tape and an
old recorder?) that offset noise, as long as one isn't focused on the
noise to the exclusion of anything else.

OK please tell us what the "advantages" are, but please stick to reality
this time.

Now I wouldn't run a digital
recording made with crummy converters in a bad room with mediocre mics
through a 30 year old consumer TEAC with a reel of tape that I
salvaged from a yard sale and call it "analog warming." But I might
mix to my Otari with a fresh reel of whatever kind of tape you can
still buy and see what it sounds like. I would expect that it might be
a little noisier than mixing to something digital, but overall it
might sound better.

Different, SURE, better, In *YOUR* opinion maybe, but more accurate, NO WAY.

Why do you think some producers and engineers still prefer to record
analog.

They are after that particular effect or just want to be different.

Drop the last half and you get my point exactly.

Thank you for agreeing it is an effect only. IMO effects are best left to
last when they can be added or NOT as you choose.
And I *never* said there wasn't a place for effects in any recording.

When people start writing "crap" every couple of sentences, I tune
out. Sorry guy.

I have to agree with you here, so why are you one of the worst offenders?

TonyP.

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:34:08 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

One does not HAVE to use autotune.
One does, today, if one has a singer with inaccurate pitch. Even
many singers who are very close to pitch want to get closer to
perfection.

One does *NOT*. You now have an OPTION that you didn't back then.

Back then, you didn't GET to record until you'd had some success as a
performer. You went in to the studio with something worth recording.
If your intonation wasn't perfect, you had other qualities that
compensated. Now every wanabee can record. Engineers can play at
turd-polishing if they want, I suppose. it's a living ';-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...

Back then, you didn't GET to record until you'd had some success as a
performer.

And now you can debut at #1 without ever really having performed at all. I'm
not sure that's what I call progress.

TonyP wrote:
"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message
...
"TonyP" wrote in message
u...
Exactly, and it is obvious that digital recording is much more
successful
these days by any measure. The fifties are long passed.

Actually, at least as of a few years ago, the percentage of households
having a CD player has never caught up with the percentage having record
players.

*QUITE* a few years ago methinks. In fact I would be willing to bet the
number of households still *using* a turntable at all is miniscule these
days.
Please provide some evidence to support you theory.

No, no, he is arguing that at their peak, there were more record players in
homes than there were CD players at _their_ peak. Two values taken at
different times.

And I can believe that. More folks today listen to music in their cars and
on walkmen than listen in their homes. This is shameful, I think.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:34:08 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

One does not HAVE to use autotune.
One does, today, if one has a singer with inaccurate pitch. Even
many singers who are very close to pitch want to get closer to
perfection.

One does *NOT*. You now have an OPTION that you didn't back then.

Back then, you didn't GET to record until you'd had some success as a
performer.

Not necessarily so. Go to a used LP store and check out the "folk" section,
specifically material recorded during the "Folk Scare" that ran from 1958
(Kingston Trio has a smash hit with "Tom Dooley") through 1964 (the Beatles
took over the charts). The big companies in the field (Vanguard, Elektra,
Capitol, RCA Victor, Columbia, Warner Bros., Mercury, Tradition) had grabbed
the big stars (Kingston Trio, Weavers, Limeliters, Joan Baez, Tom Paxton,
Chad Mitchell Trio, Theo Bikel, Oscar Brand, Bob Dylan, PP&M, Carolyn
Hester, Ian & Sylvia); the little companies rushed in to get a piece of the
action. You find the results in the used bins; album after album recycling
material from the stars, recorded by folks who the little labels pulled out
of some college coffeehouse someplace and signed in the hope they might have
the next Baez. It mostly didn't work, and most of the acts were truly
dreadful. If Autotune had been around, it might've helped...a little. There
were a few folks who got discovered that way and were genuinely good, but
mostly they weren't.

Same story in any field that gets popular (I picked the one I know best);
you don't remember the bad acts because you probably never bought the
records anyway, but go to the used stores, and the whole sad story lies in
front of you.

Peace,
Paul

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote in message
news:hWiXc.94284$TI1.20710@attbi_s52...
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...

Back then, you didn't GET to record until you'd had some success as a
performer.

And now you can debut at #1 without ever really having performed at all.
I'm
not sure that's what I call progress.

Two words: Blind Faith.

The more things change...

Peace,
Paul

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
No, no, he is arguing that at their peak, there were more record players
in
homes than there were CD players at _their_ peak. Two values taken at
different times.

The statistic was actually at the same time from the Consumer Electronics
Association but it was before computers started being counted as CD players.
Record players were in well over 90% of homes during the 1970s. I know you
can't say that for computers but I don't know about computers, DVD players
and CD players combined.

An awful lot of people I know had their first CD experience with a computer
three or four years ago after years of LPs and cassettes. Most have never
heard a CD on anything other than their computer's speakers. Abandoning LP
lovers is one of the stupidist things the record stores ever did.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:27:25 GMT, "Ricky W. Hunt"
wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
.. .

Back then, you didn't GET to record until you'd had some success as a
performer.

And now you can debut at #1 without ever really having performed at all. I'm
not sure that's what I call progress.

Nowadays, DJs "perform".

Al

On 26 Aug 2004 09:30:34 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

TonyP wrote:
"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message
...
"TonyP" wrote in message
u...
Exactly, and it is obvious that digital recording is much more
successful
these days by any measure. The fifties are long passed.

Actually, at least as of a few years ago, the percentage of households
having a CD player has never caught up with the percentage having record
players.

*QUITE* a few years ago methinks. In fact I would be willing to bet the
number of households still *using* a turntable at all is miniscule these
days.
Please provide some evidence to support you theory.

No, no, he is arguing that at their peak, there were more record players in
homes than there were CD players at _their_ peak. Two values taken at
different times.

And I can believe that. More folks today listen to music in their cars and
on walkmen than listen in their homes. This is shameful, I think.

Well you can't blame them... people spend a lot more time in their
cars now, thanks to bad urban planning. A lot of people listen to
music on their computers now too.

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:30:34 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

TonyP wrote:
"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message
...
"TonyP" wrote in message
u...
Exactly, and it is obvious that digital recording is much more
successful
these days by any measure. The fifties are long passed.

Actually, at least as of a few years ago, the percentage of households
having a CD player has never caught up with the percentage having record
players.

*QUITE* a few years ago methinks. In fact I would be willing to bet the
number of households still *using* a turntable at all is miniscule these
days.
Please provide some evidence to support you theory.

No, no, he is arguing that at their peak, there were more record players in
homes than there were CD players at _their_ peak. Two values taken at
different times.

And I can believe that. More folks today listen to music in their cars and
on walkmen than listen in their homes. This is shameful, I think.
--scott

Right. CDs at their peak!? Are you implying that CDs have passed their peak?

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote in message
news:hWiXc.94284$TI1.20710@attbi_s52...
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...

Back then, you didn't GET to record until you'd had some success as a
performer.

And now you can debut at #1 without ever really having performed at all.
I'm
not sure that's what I call progress.

I bet you wouldn't complain if YOU were the artist :-)

TonyP.

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
No, no, he is arguing that at their peak, there were more record players
in
homes than there were CD players at _their_ peak. Two values taken at
different times.

And I can believe that.

I can't!

More folks today listen to music in their cars and
on walkmen than listen in their homes. This is shameful, I think.


Most people had one turntable, and maybe a cassette deck. Now they have a CD
player, DVD player which plays CD's, CD player in their car, CD player in
their computer, CD player in their boom box, and maybe a CD walkman.

TonyP.

In article writes:

Right. CDs at their peak!? Are you implying that CDs have passed their peak?

I don't have any data, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some
study that shows that they have indeed passed their peak. The DVD
player was the fastest selling consumer electronic product ever (from
last year's CES), and it appears from informal observation, the
success of iTunes, and threats of lawsuits for downloaders that MP3
files are the most popular music format these days.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 06:19:21 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article znr1093568752k@trad):


In article writes:

Right. CDs at their peak!? Are you implying that CDs have passed their peak?

I don't have any data, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some
study that shows that they have indeed passed their peak. The DVD
player was the fastest selling consumer electronic product ever (from
last year's CES), and it appears from informal observation, the
success of iTunes, and threats of lawsuits for downloaders that MP3
files are the most popular music format these days.


Guess it's a case of interpretation. I'm guessing there are more "CD Players"
per household than there every were turntables. A DVD player that also plays
CDs has to be considered a CD player as well as do CD drives in computers,
provided they play music.


Off hand, I'd say this was a case of the statistics being grossly
mainpulated.

Regards,

Ty (I still own a nicely working turntable and 41.5 linear feet of vinyl)
Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Most people had one turntable, and maybe a cassette deck. Now they have a CD
player, DVD player which plays CD's, CD player in their car, CD player in
their computer, CD player in their boom box, and maybe a CD walkman.

TonyP.


although this may getting off point, do you consider those cd players
in the same sense that phonographs were considered? in my flat, i
have a stereo that has a phonograph and a tuner. my stereo doesn't
have a cd player. on the other hand, my computer has a cd drive,
there's a boombox with a cd player, and a discman with headphones (i
haven't upgraded the cassette player to a cd player in my car).

so, this means that, for actual *listening*, i have a tuner and
phonograph. i don't have a cd player for "real".

but who does anymore? who sits and listens to an album? music is
"consumed" in cars, in headphones, over computer speakers, etc.?

cds are on their way out, anyway. mp3-type players make much much
much more sense.

i wonder how long it'll be before i'm uploading a band's mixes onto
their ipod after the session . . .


cheers,
chris deckard
saint louis mo

If you are prepared to accept astronomical levels of distortion. Otherwise
the REAL DNR measured at say 1% distortion was a LOT lower.
If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please do!

TonyP.

wait -- there's different kinds of distortion. just look at the
transfer curves of a tube vs. a transistor. it's all right there in
the graph. now, which you prefer is subjective (i record a lot of
noise bands, so things can get quite subjective).

an anecdote:
i have a tascam ms16 1" 16 track. i always used the dbx NR because i
feared the hiss. one day, a client and i A/B'd the NR and without.
we turned the NR off the rest of the project.

and i don't use the dbx at all these days. sure, there's hiss in the
recordings, and i have to be on my toes with the channel mutes, but
the difference in sound is there -- so much that i'm willing to
sacrifice some 30dB in noise floor.

to me, it's common sense: all the processing that happens within the
dbxI process is going to affect the high end -- if we've learned
anything from thermodynamics, it's that you can't get anything for
free .


cheers,
chris deckard
saint louis mo

In article writes:

Guess it's a case of interpretation. I'm guessing there are more "CD Players"
per household than there every were turntables.

Rmember, when I'm in my "argue with people who complain about not
being able to play copy protected music CDs on their computer" suit, I
maintain the position that a computer is not a CD player. The fact
that it can be used to play some music CDs is a convenience, not its
purpose in life. (Then people turn around and argue about the use of
the "CD" logo - I can't win)

A DVD player that also plays
CDs has to be considered a CD player as well as do CD drives in computers,
provided they play music.

I'll give you two out of three.

Off hand, I'd say this was a case of the statistics being grossly
mainpulated.

If you count CD drives in computers as CD players, I'd say so too.

Ty (I still own a nicely working turntable and 41.5 linear feet of vinyl)
Ford

I have two working turntables but not quite as big a record collection
as you have.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

in my flat, i
have a stereo that has a phonograph and a tuner. my stereo doesn't
have a cd player. on the other hand, my computer has a cd drive,
there's a boombox with a cd player, and a discman with headphones

so, this means that, for actual *listening*, i have a tuner and
phonograph. i don't have a cd player for "real".

The way I count it, you have two CD players - the boombox and the
Diskman. I'll concede that you may not consider the boombox or Diskman
with headphones suitable for "listening."

Your computer only counts if you promise not to complain when
you get a copy-protected disk that won't play in it.

but who does anymore? who sits and listens to an album? music is
"consumed" in cars, in headphones, over computer speakers, etc.?

I do, on occasion, but more often I listen to the radio. I'm doing
that now (zydeco at the moment). I still have my big Bozak 4000
speakers in the living room and typically I'll sit down for a new CD,
though rarely for an old one.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"TonyP" wrote in message
u...

If you are prepared to accept astronomical levels of distortion.

I'm prepared to accept subjectively acceptable levels of distortion. This
can be 5-10% on peaks. The solid state gear gives up at 1% while the tube
gear has another 10-15 dB. before reaching 5-10%. Have you ever done
listening tests for distortion?

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1093625240k@trad...
In article writes:

in my flat, i
have a stereo that has a phonograph and a tuner. my stereo doesn't
have a cd player. on the other hand, my computer has a cd drive,
there's a boombox with a cd player, and a discman with headphones


i forgot a teac reel to reel (A-4010 -- the one with the horrible
noise floor from the electronics). i'm transfering some old reels for
a client, and after listening to a few, i've decided to make it part
of my stereo. any cd i purchase, i'm going to transfer to tape.
maybe i'm fooling myself into thinking it sounds better -- just allow
me this one bliss of placebo . . .


I do, on occasion, but more often I listen to the radio. I'm doing
that now (zydeco at the moment). I still have my big Bozak 4000
speakers in the living room and typically I'll sit down for a new CD,
though rarely for an old one.

i'm lucky enough to live in a town with and npr station, a good
college jazz station, and an honest-to-god community station (kdhx).
however, i do find myself tuning into this commercial country station,
because i've developed this macabre infatuation with the question,
"just what IS modern country?"

cheers,
chris deckard
saint louis moe

It won't matter soon anyhow - the DVD mechanism will be the one
manufactured, and if you want to play a CD, you will buy a DVD machine.

Case in point:

Last DVD machine purchased for PA work: $69.00 AUD, with THE LOT (VGA
out, DTS, Dolby decoding onboard etc etc)
Last CD machine purchased: Marantz CD-67SE, $900 AUD - it plays CDs.

Granted, the CD machine was a premium machine, but why even buy a second
hand CD player that is more expensive than a brand new DVD player?

Best Regards,

Anthony B. Kitson
ABK Audio Engineering.

PS - First time back here in a few years. A big hello to the familiar names
from the past and the rec.audio chat sessions. Judging from the same ol
crap being argued into the ground (of course I read the Bose shop thread up
first!) nothings ever changed.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

I don't have any data, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some
study that shows that they have indeed passed their peak. The DVD
player was the fastest selling consumer electronic product ever (from
last year's CES), and it appears from informal observation, the
success of iTunes, and threats of lawsuits for downloaders that MP3
files are the most popular music format these days.

"mr c deckard" wrote in message
om...
i forgot a teac reel to reel (A-4010 -- the one with the horrible
noise floor from the electronics). i'm transfering some old reels for
a client, and after listening to a few, i've decided to make it part
of my stereo. any cd i purchase, i'm going to transfer to tape.
maybe i'm fooling myself into thinking it sounds better -- just allow
me this one bliss of placebo . . .

Of course you're fooling yourself, but as long as YOU'RE
happy.....................
(at least you already realise it)

Here's a tip, transfer it back to CDR to save on tape costs and make playing
SO much easier.

TonyP.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1093604639k@trad...

and no new store-bought CDs - they download all their music now, even
if they copy some of their downloads on to CD blanks to play in one or
more of those players.

Yes, it really amuses me when they convert 128kbs MP3 back to CD.

TonyP.

"mr c deckard" wrote in message
om...
an anecdote:
i have a tascam ms16 1" 16 track. i always used the dbx NR because i
feared the hiss. one day, a client and i A/B'd the NR and without.
we turned the NR off the rest of the project.

Exactly, you took the SNR hit because the "solution" was even worse.
With digital you aren't caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

and i don't use the dbx at all these days. sure, there's hiss in the
recordings, and i have to be on my toes with the channel mutes, but
the difference in sound is there -- so much that i'm willing to
sacrifice some 30dB in noise floor.

to me, it's common sense: all the processing that happens within the
dbxI process is going to affect the high end -- if we've learned
anything from thermodynamics, it's that you can't get anything for
free .

Having used Dolby A, B, C, S, and SR at various times, I'm sure glad I don't
have to anymore.

TonyP.

"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message
...
"TonyP" wrote in message
u...

If you are prepared to accept astronomical levels of distortion.

I'm prepared to accept subjectively acceptable levels of distortion. This
can be 5-10% on peaks. The solid state gear gives up at 1% while the tube
gear has another 10-15 dB. before reaching 5-10%.

But these figures are meaningless in isolation.

Have you ever done
listening tests for distortion?

Of course, and more importantly measured it on thousands of occasions.

TonyP.

In article ,
AnthonyBK wrote:
It won't matter soon anyhow - the DVD mechanism will be the one
manufactured, and if you want to play a CD, you will buy a DVD machine.

Case in point:

Last DVD machine purchased for PA work: $69.00 AUD, with THE LOT (VGA
out, DTS, Dolby decoding onboard etc etc)
Last CD machine purchased: Marantz CD-67SE, $900 AUD - it plays CDs.

Granted, the CD machine was a premium machine, but why even buy a second
hand CD player that is more expensive than a brand new DVD player?

Because it won't start skipping in the middle of a live gig.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article writes:

It may not be *TECHNICAL* enough to satisfy you since you seem to be
pretty narrow-minded about this, but how about this: Some studio
clients with plenty of money to spend think that it sounds better and
request it. To me, if I'm in business to make money with a studio, the
fact that I can get paid to do my work is more than just a
"technicality."


No argument, but how does that correspond with your "OBJECTIVELY" better
assertion?

Perfectly. It's the objective clients that pay the bills.

You have provided no proof that ALL singers are now worse than thhey were in
the fifties though.

Do I have to? And what would it prove if I did? All you need to
justify retuning a singer is a singer who wants to be in better tune
than he is. There are many more people today who sing on recordings
than there were in the fifties. Without a system of pre-selection,
there are bound to be more bad singers recording today than there were
in the '50's. Can you find fault with that hypothesis?

What doesn't convince me is YOU trying to claim there is some TECHNICAL
SUPERIORITY in fifties gear, rather than just saying in the first place that
some people PREFER the sound they are used to.

We've already discussed the fact that there's more headroom.

Why not state what you mean in the first place then, and save all the
arguments over your "OBJECTIVELY SUPERIOR" bull****!

I don't understand what you're saying here. YOu're becoming
irrational. Focus, man.

I don't think your *opinions* are crap BTW, but when they are continually
stated as "facts" with NO data to support them, then they become crap.

So you're saying "crap" to me. Bye.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

TonyP wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1093604639k@trad...


and no new store-bought CDs - they download all their music now, even
if they copy some of their downloads on to CD blanks to play in one or
more of those players.

Yes, it really amuses me when they convert 128kbs MP3 back to CD.

Well, the sound quality isn't any worse than listening to the 128kbps
MP3s themselves, so if that sound quality is acceptable on the computer,
I guess it's acceptable in the car or whatever as well.

On the other hand, if you then rip the audio off that CD and encode
it as MP3 again...

- Logan

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1093872546k@trad...
In article
writes:

It may not be *TECHNICAL* enough to satisfy you since you seem to be
pretty narrow-minded about this, but how about this: Some studio
clients with plenty of money to spend think that it sounds better and
request it. To me, if I'm in business to make money with a studio, the
fact that I can get paid to do my work is more than just a
"technicality."


No argument, but how does that correspond with your "OBJECTIVELY" better
assertion?

Perfectly. It's the objective clients that pay the bills.


Ok, no point in arguing with Humpty Dumpty then.

TonyP.

"Logan Shaw" wrote in message
...
TonyP wrote:
Yes, it really amuses me when they convert 128kbs MP3 back to CD.

Well, the sound quality isn't any worse than listening to the 128kbps
MP3s themselves, so if that sound quality is acceptable on the computer,
I guess it's acceptable in the car or whatever as well.

Of course, but playing the MP3's in the car gives me 10 hours per disk.

TonyP.

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Granted, the CD machine was a premium machine, but why even buy a second
hand CD player that is more expensive than a brand new DVD player?

Because it won't start skipping in the middle of a live gig.

How do you guarantee that? Such faith in any mechanical device is touching.

TonyP.

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:58:58 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:


"Logan Shaw" wrote in message
...
TonyP wrote:
Yes, it really amuses me when they convert 128kbs MP3 back to CD.

Well, the sound quality isn't any worse than listening to the 128kbps
MP3s themselves, so if that sound quality is acceptable on the computer,
I guess it's acceptable in the car or whatever as well.

Of course, but playing the MP3's in the car gives me 10 hours per disk.

TonyP.

Your priorities are interesting for a person that professes to care
about audio.

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:13:31 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Granted, the CD machine was a premium machine, but why even buy a second
hand CD player that is more expensive than a brand new DVD player?

Because it won't start skipping in the middle of a live gig.

How do you guarantee that? Such faith in any mechanical device is touching.

TonyP.

So were you born a prick, or are you a self-made man?

"playon" playonATcomcast.net wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:58:58 +1000, "TonyP"
Of course, but playing the MP3's in the car gives me 10 hours per disk.

Your priorities are interesting for a person that professes to care
about audio.

Why, I don't own a Rolls Royce, so better audio would be wasted there. MP3
just provides convenience.

TonyP.

"playon" playonATcomcast.net wrote in message
...
So were you born a prick, or are you a self-made man?

You can always tell when someone has lost all logic, they resort to insults
instead.

TonyP.