Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"David" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message That begs the question of why vinyl's sales went up just lately. The most recent relevant technological advance was the under-$200 USB turntable. Think that might be it - people picking up some new media to see what their newly-hyped cheap LP playback hardware actually sounds like? LOL, so they go and buy a crappy USB turntable so that they can then purchase recordings at about twice the price of a CD only to convert it back to digital, yeah right. It's not always that simple or single minded. Some people are buying USB turntables to convert their existing LPs (which they may not have listened to for a goodly number of years) into CDs based on fond memories of what the LPs sounded like. Some people read the hype about vinyl sounding better than CDs, and blow some "mad money" to do what the cool people do. A USB turntable can play directly through a PC's speakers in real time, so conversion to CDs is not a necessary part of their use. These people may have no LPs on hand at all, and are therefore natural customers for new LPs. People who are converting their existing LPs are likely to have their sonic expectations disappointed, and may reasonably blame that on the condition of their old LPs. Purchasing a few new high-touted LPs is a reasonable step for them to take to diagnose their problem. USB turntables are only bought to convert your old collection to digital. That's not necessarily true. A lot of young people base their home sound systems on PCs. There's a big market for upscale PC speakers, for example. A USB turntable is an obvious tool for them to use for listening to LPs in real time. The sales of LPs (in general very good pressings and quite costly) are on the increase for one reason and one reason only. There are good reasons, given above, for rejecting this kind of simplistic statement. |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 18, 6:54=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , Audio Empire wrote: Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a concert. That pretty much tells it all. =A0You're talking about listening to music under technically degraded conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state. In fact it is pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music heard or recorded live isn't being heard at its best. Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. =A0Though you aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd like to chime in. =A0For me, live IS the "most perfected state". Actually, I didn't exactly contradict that. =A0I said: "Just because the music is live doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state." The contradiction of what I said would be: "If the music is live that =A0means =A0that it is being heard in its most perfected state. " If you want to contradict what I said, then you're basically saying that even if a 2 year old attempts to beat out Beethoven's Ninth on his cereal bowl, that would be Beethoven's Ninth in its most highly perfected state. Is that what you mean to say? Yes Arny "Live" would be the perfect way to hear a two year old try to beat out Beethoven's ninth if one wanted to hear a two year old do that. Recording it digitally and playing it back would be an inferior way of hearing it. Hence the idea of live as a reference. But of course most of us don't want to hear that. What we want is to hear is great performances be it classical, jazz, folk, rock or whatever. here is the catch, if I want to hear Coltrane play Love Supreme I can't go the concert hall to hear him live (the ideal) because it ain't gonna happen for obvious reasons. So all we have is a great legacy of recordings of these great performances and the virtues and liabilities of the recording quality that comes with each of them. The question is what will bring us closer to that superior aesthetic of "live" when playing back these recordings via their commercial releases. In many cases (most actually) an LP played back on a high end rig will be more life like and aesthetically pleasing than any and all possible combinations of CDP and commercially released CD of the same title. All this anguish over an occasional tick or pop seems like much ado over nothing. Ever heard of hi rez digital rips and deticking programs? Would you really rather listen to say, the RVG CDs over the Music Matter's or APO reissues because of an occasional tick or pop that can easily be removed? Really? Ignore the version that is many times more life like, involving and aesthetically beautiful to avoid removable ticks and pops? Your gun your foot. |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:56:55 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Arny Krueger wrote: Actually, I didn't exactly contradict that. I said: "Just because the music is live doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state." The contradiction of what I said would be: "If the music is live that means that it is being heard in its most perfected state. " If you want to contradict what I said, then you're basically saying that even if a 2 year old attempts to beat out Beethoven's Ninth on his cereal bowl, that would be Beethoven's Ninth in its most highly perfected state. Is that what you mean to say? If you're attempting a "reductio ad absurdum," you need to start with the premise, and use logical steps to reach an absurd conclusion as a means of showing the premise is absurd. It doesn't work if you start with a premise and use absurd steps to reach an absurd conclusion. Or, more to the point, no, I see NO reason that the inevitable logical conclusion of Jenn's premise is as you state. Yes, it is absurd to conclude that a 2 year old's attempts to beat out Beethoven on a cereal box is that piece in its most highly perfected state. But that conclusion is your absurdity, not hers. While I may agree with some of your assertions on the verifiable technical properties of LP playback, it's becoming apparent to me that you have moved far beyond that and have taken this on as a crusade that seems personal and borders on the ad hominem. If you are saying that Arny Kruger's negative opinions about vinyl seem to border on the obsessiveness of a personal crusade, I'd have to say, yes, it does seem that way. Perhaps it's merely the forcefulness of his assertions that make his comments seem a bit overboard at times. He strikes me as a pretty intelligent and knowledgeable guy, overall. |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote (in article ): In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , Audio Empire wrote: Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a concert. That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about listening to music under technically degraded conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state. In fact it is pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music heard or recorded live isn't being heard at its best. Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though you aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd like to chime in. For me, live IS the "most perfected state". I can imagine that if I attended rock concerts, for example, I wouldn't feel the same way about that music. The above is an example of narrowing the discussion far more than what it was it was originally stated. Suddenly a potentially large number of performances of a given composition have been reduced to just one performance. Given that there are many musical performances that never ever exist as a live performance, a great deal of music has been artificially excluded from the discussion. In short my point, which is that many live performances so suboptimal as to have no appreciable public interest has been missed. Since rock concerts ARE artificial (in that without the PA system, there would be no concert performance) You simply cannot compare the two. I wasn't comparing the two. I didn't even mention whether or not the concert involved amplified instruments, because it really doesn't matter. Amplified musical instruments are often used with no PA system at all. It is very common for amplified instruments to have their own individual amplification systems. In essence, the electronics is an electrical analog of the usual mechanical or acoustical amplification that is built into virtually every acoustical instrument. It does not make sense to me to quibble whether or not the means of amplification is mechanical or acoustical or electrical. Once one realizes that the electronics is simply an analog, then it also doesn't matter whether or not the electronics is aggregated and shared among a number of instruments, or individualized. I don't think that either engineers or listeners should dictate to musicians how their instruments are implemented. All that should matter to us is whether or not the meet the usual artistic criteria. IOW, we should judge musical instruments based on how they sound when played by trained, skilled musicians, and not prejudge them based on their internal construction. |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: Actually, I didn't exactly contradict that. I said: "Just because the music is live doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state." The contradiction of what I said would be: "If the music is live that means that it is being heard in its most perfected state. " If you want to contradict what I said, then you're basically saying that even if a 2 year old attempts to beat out Beethoven's Ninth on his cereal bowl, that would be Beethoven's Ninth in its most highly perfected state. Is that what you mean to say? If you're attempting a "reductio ad absurdum," you need to start with the premise, and use logical steps to reach an absurd conclusion as a means of showing the premise is absurd. It doesn't work if you start with a premise and use absurd steps to reach an absurd conclusion. There seems to be a double standard here. There's no conference rule that discussions have to follow a predetermined form. All that's necessary is that they be reasonably understandable. It's quite clear that the intent of my comments was unstandable and understood. Or, more to the point, no, I see NO reason that the inevitable logical conclusion of Jenn's premise is as you state. It is very rare that any discussions here ever lead to inevitable logical conclusions. So we have yet another example of standards being made up and applied *after* the discussion point was presented. Yes, it is absurd to conclude that a 2 year old's attempts to beat out Beethoven on a cereal box is that piece in its most highly perfected state. Of course. But that conclusion is your absurdity, not hers. It's a reasonble conclusion that can be reached from an overly broad statement like: "If the music is live that means that it is being heard in its most perfected state." One rather obvious problem with the above statement is that there is much music that does not ever exist as a live performance. Much music that is listened to today is constructed in the studio. The only complete form of the recording that ever exists is composed of segments and snippets, many highly processed by sound-altering hardware and software. Thus the above is a blanket statement that music cannot be in its most perfected state unless it is live. Seems very short sighted and narrow. While I may agree with some of your assertions on the verifiable technical properties of LP playback, it's becoming apparent to me that you have moved far beyond that and have taken this on as a crusade that seems personal and borders on the ad hominem. No personalities were introduced by me into this portion of the discussion. If there are any ad hominem arguments here, then they must have been introduced by someone besides me, and are wholly products of their imaginations. |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote (in article ): In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , Audio Empire wrote: Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a concert. That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about listening to music under technically degraded conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state. In fact it is pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music heard or recorded live isn't being heard at its best. Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though you aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd like to chime in. For me, live IS the "most perfected state". I can imagine that if I attended rock concerts, for example, I wouldn't feel the same way about that music. The above is an example of narrowing the discussion far more than what it was it was originally stated. Suddenly a potentially large number of performances of a given composition have been reduced to just one performance. Huh? I'm afraid that I don't understand your statement. Given that there are many musical performances that never ever exist as a live performance, a great deal of music has been artificially excluded from the discussion. You've totally lost me. Every performance is a live performance. The goal, as I see it, is to capture the sound of that live performance and reproduce it as faithfully in the home as possible. In short my point, which is that many live performances so suboptimal as to have no appreciable public interest has been missed. I don't know how that became at all relevant. In what way does the quality of the performance matter in this discussion? Since rock concerts ARE artificial (in that without the PA system, there would be no concert performance) You simply cannot compare the two. I wasn't comparing the two. I didn't even mention whether or not the concert involved amplified instruments, because it really doesn't matter. Amplified musical instruments are often used with no PA system at all. It is very common for amplified instruments to have their own individual amplification systems. In essence, the electronics is an electrical analog of the usual mechanical or acoustical amplification that is built into virtually every acoustical instrument. It does not make sense to me to quibble whether or not the means of amplification is mechanical or acoustical or electrical. Once one realizes that the electronics is simply an analog, then it also doesn't matter whether or not the electronics is aggregated and shared among a number of instruments, or individualized. I don't think that either engineers or listeners should dictate to musicians how their instruments are implemented. All that should matter to us is whether or not the meet the usual artistic criteria. IOW, we should judge musical instruments based on how they sound when played by trained, skilled musicians, and not prejudge them based on their internal construction. I believe that the OP (as well as I) were speaking of unamplified instruments, i.e. "the music that I usually listen to" to which I referred. Perhaps it was lost in the above, but we were discussion "distractions" in listening: p&c on LPs vs. coughs and program rustling at concerts. The rock concert example was used because the "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at acoustic concerts. |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Jenn" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote (in article ): In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , Audio Empire wrote: Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a concert. That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about listening to music under technically degraded conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state. In fact it is pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music heard or recorded live isn't being heard at its best. Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though you aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd like to chime in. For me, live IS the "most perfected state". I can imagine that if I attended rock concerts, for example, I wouldn't feel the same way about that music. When people talk about what they imagine, they are admitting that their comments have zero empirical or experiential base. I really don't have time to pay much attention to such things. The above is an example of narrowing the discussion far more than what it was it was originally stated. Suddenly a potentially large number of performances of a given composition have been reduced to just one performance. Huh? I'm afraid that I don't understand your statement. It appears that my comments are being buried in an avalanche of unrestrained subjectivism and perhaps even solipsism. In the original context, the discussion seemed to be about music that might be available in several forms, including perhaps live performances and on various kinds of media. IOW we were talking about the same basic piece of music such as a composition or a performance by certain artists at a certain time in a certain place. A given piece of music would be available as various performances and/or on various kinds of media. If there is no such diversity, then there is really nothing to discuss, and we end up with such useless and trivial nonsense as observations that every instance is a perfect example of itself. Given that there are many musical performances that never ever exist as a live performance, a great deal of music has been artificially excluded from the discussion. You've totally lost me. I can't help that. Every performance is a live performance. How do you define live performance? I define live performance as an event with performers and an audience all together in one place. The music work is performed in real time. In this day and age some of the elements of the performance may be themselves recordings. In some cases the performer and the audience are the same person. IMO, it is quite a stretch to call this a live performance. In some cases there is never a day and a time where the performers and the audience are all together in one place. They are often connected electronically and displaced from each other by time and space. IMO this is *not* a live performance. It is in fact very common. There was a musical performance, but there was no audience in the common meaning of audience. In some cases there never is a day and a time when even all of the performers are all together in one place. Again, they are connected electronically, and displaced from each other by time and space. IMO this is *not* a live performance. It is also in fact very common. There was a musical performance, but there was no audience in the common meaning of audience. Furthermore, even the musical performers were displaced from each other by time and/or space. The goal, as I see it, is to capture the sound of that live performance and reproduce it as faithfully in the home as possible. Most if not almost all music listened to at home was not available for capture at any live performance. "Live Performance" recordings are only a tiny minority of all commercial recordings that are available. In short my point, which is that many live performances so suboptimal as to have no appreciable public interest has been missed. I don't know how that became at all relevant. In what way does the quality of the performance matter in this discussion? The quality of the performance started mattering in this discussion when the phrase "most perfected" was introduced about 2 days ago. It's quoted above. How can there be a reasonable discussion when such basic issues are denied by people responding to posts? Since rock concerts ARE artificial (in that without the PA system, there would be no concert performance) You simply cannot compare the two. This is a very ignorant statement. It is quite possible to play rock music on acoustical instruments. No PA system or any electronics of any kind are required. I wasn't comparing the two. I didn't even mention whether or not the concert involved amplified instruments, because it really doesn't matter. Amplified musical instruments are often used with no PA system at all. It is very common for amplified instruments to have their own individual amplification systems. In essence, the electronics is an electrical analog of the usual mechanical or acoustical amplification that is built into virtually every acoustical instrument. It does not make sense to me to quibble whether or not the means of amplification is mechanical or acoustical or electrical. Once one realizes that the electronics is simply an analog, then it also doesn't matter whether or not the electronics is aggregated and shared among a number of instruments, or individualized. I don't think that either engineers or listeners should dictate to musicians how their instruments are implemented. All that should matter to us is whether or not the meet the usual artistic criteria. IOW, we should judge musical instruments based on how they sound when played by trained, skilled musicians, and not prejudge them based on their internal construction. I believe that the OP (as well as I) were speaking of unamplified instruments, i.e. "the music that I usually listen to" to which I referred. I'm the OP as the quotes at the top of this post indicate, and I would never make the kind of narrow and ignorant statements that seem to have afflicted this thread. Perhaps it was lost in the above, but we were discussion "distractions" in listening: p&c on LPs vs. coughs and program rustling at concerts. I'm truly amazed at the logical gyrations that some people will go through to deny the obvious fact that tics and pops can be very distracting to very many listeners. In fact the popularity of digital formats is partially based on the fact that almost all listeners will avoid media with tics and pops, given the choice. Furthermore, it is very common for people to complain about coughs at concerts, which are common in temperate climates for 2 or 3 months of the year. How something that is disagreeable as coughs at concerts would be seized on as a defense of endemic flaws in any particular kind of media is actually quite taxing to my imagination. The rock concert example was used because the "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at acoustic concerts. Again we have an example of an ignorant claim that rock music can't be performed acoustically, and from a source that seems to have shown that she knows better on other occasions. It is well known that musical genre and the choice of instruments are often completely orthogonal to each other. One can play classical music on electric instruments and one can play rock on acoustical instruments, right? In fact playing rock and roll on acoustical instruments has lately become stylish as a number of albums with the word "unplugged" in them shows. I believe that several have gone gold. |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
Jenn wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote (in article ): In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message snip I believe that the OP (as well as I) were speaking of unamplified instruments, i.e. "the music that I usually listen to" to which I referred. Perhaps it was lost in the above, but we were discussion "distractions" in listening: p&c on LPs vs. coughs and program rustling at concerts. Perhaps I'm alone in this view, but to me, what makes the "noise" a "distraction" is the contextual incongruity. While coughs can be disruptive, they, along with program rustling, and various other such minor crowd related noises don't really bother me much. In the context of an audience setting, they are "normal" background noises, and as such seldom intrude on my consciousness. Tics and pops, however, are totally incongruous, and are always disruptive and distracting. An illustration: Say you're sitting in the park having a conversation with a friend. There are kids playing and making noise, dogs barking, traffic sounds, etc. Does this bother you or intrude on your conversation? Likely not, as they are contextually familiar and "expected" sounds. Now add to this scene a clown with a 'ground pounder' who pulls in, parks, and starts sharing his/her favorite hip-hop...music...with you. This immediately becomes (at least to me) totally disruptive and distracting, irrespective of the relative sound levels (i.e. it doesn't have to be real loud, just clearly audible). It is intrusive because it's not (well, didn't use to be) part of the normal "park sound". Keith Hughes |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: snip The rock concert example was used because the "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at acoustic concerts. Again we have an example of an ignorant claim that rock music can't be performed acoustically, and from a source that seems to have shown that she knows better on other occasions. You seem to have put and undeservedly negative interpretation on that one Arny. I took Jenn's "acoustic" moniker, in the statement above, as simple shorthand to mean "non-rock" genres. Not meaning that rock can't be "acoustic" (Jenn can correct me if I'm wrong - 'cause then she'd be :-). Reality is that the vast majority of rock concerts are *not* acoustic/un-amplified (some of the absolute best are, but that's another story), and IME, irrespective of whether the music is acoustic or amplified, rock concerts are, in every case, noisier than would be, say, a symphony performance. Crowd restraint at rock concerts is not really an expectation, and lets face it, crowds seldom rise above expectations. Keith Hughes |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 19, 8:28=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message =A0The rock concert example was used because the "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at =A0acoustic concerts. Again we have an example of an ignorant claim that rock music can't be performed acoustically, and from a source that seems to have shown that s= he knows better on other occasions. No Arny all we have here is either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of what Jenn is actually asserting. "Rock concerts" are performed with PA systems. This is pretty much a universal truth. There may be the rare exception but they are not really worth noting. The noise at a rock concert is almost universally greater then that of an unamplified acoustic concert. That was the comapraison Jenn was making. It was clear and easy to understand. It is well known that musical genre and the choice of instruments are oft= en completely orthogonal to each other. One can play classical music on electric instruments and one can play rock on acoustical instruments, rig= ht? Given that you have clerarly misrepresented what Jenn was saying.... your point is mut. In fact playing rock and roll on acoustical instruments has lately become stylish as a number of albums with the word "unplugged" in them shows. I believe that several have gone gold. And they were all performed with P.A. systems. |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:28:28 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote (in article ): In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , Audio Empire wrote: Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a concert. That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about listening to music under technically degraded conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state. In fact it is pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music heard or recorded live isn't being heard at its best. Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though you aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd like to chime in. For me, live IS the "most perfected state". I can imagine that if I attended rock concerts, for example, I wouldn't feel the same way about that music. When people talk about what they imagine, they are admitting that their comments have zero empirical or experiential base. I really don't have time to pay much attention to such things. The above is an example of narrowing the discussion far more than what it was it was originally stated. Suddenly a potentially large number of performances of a given composition have been reduced to just one performance. Huh? I'm afraid that I don't understand your statement. It appears that my comments are being buried in an avalanche of unrestrained subjectivism and perhaps even solipsism. In the original context, the discussion seemed to be about music that might be available in several forms, including perhaps live performances and on various kinds of media. IOW we were talking about the same basic piece of music such as a composition or a performance by certain artists at a certain time in a certain place. A given piece of music would be available as various performances and/or on various kinds of media. If there is no such diversity, then there is really nothing to discuss, and we end up with such useless and trivial nonsense as observations that every instance is a perfect example of itself. All Jenn asserts is that hearing live unamplified music, playing in a real space is the closest one can get to that music (without actually being one of the performers). Nothing else. She wasn't talking about studio performances (from what I gather from her posts)of largely electronic instruments which do not exist outside of the studio (and in a concert environment are the result of the ensemble carrying the "studio" with them. The difference being instead of the output of the studio equipment being some recording device, it's a bunch of PA speakers). Given that there are many musical performances that never ever exist as a live performance, a great deal of music has been artificially excluded from the discussion. You've totally lost me. I can't help that. Every performance is a live performance. How do you define live performance? A live performance is any time musicians play in the presence of an audience - no matter how big or small that audience might be. But the kind of live performance being discussed here is, I believe, live, unamplified music, played in a real space. If one isn't listening to the instruments themselves (and when sound reinforcement is present, one is listening to the PA system's reconstruction of those instruments, not the instruments themselves), one is not HEARING the instruments. One is hearing and seeing the musicians playing their instruments, but one is not listening TO those instruments. I define live performance as an event with performers and an audience all together in one place. The music work is performed in real time. In this day and age some of the elements of the performance may be themselves recordings. Yes, your definition is, indeed valid, but it's not the kind of "live performance" that this discussion is about (well, let me be more specific here. It's certainly not what I mean when I speak of live music performed in real space, and I don't believe it's what Jenn is talking about either). You are talking about instruments that have no sound of their own, but rely upon electronics to provide that sound. A Martin solid-body electric guitar, without it's amplifier and speaker, makes no sound above a whisper. I suspect that a Fender-Rhodes or other electric piano makes no sound without it's speakers, either. I am talking about acoustic instruments that rely totally on human lung and muscle power to make music. In the kind of live performance that I'm talking about, there is nothing between that instrument and my ears except air and that is the most perfect realization of that performance because I'm hearing the performance DIRECTLY. I don't care about pop and rock music, would never listen to it, and certainly have never and would never attend a concert where such music was played. The closest I ever came was in Rome a few years ago. Paul McCartney was giving a free concert at the ancient Roman Colosseum and I happened to be in the (empty that day) Roman Forum next to it. I could hear the music everywhere I went that day, even up on the Palatine! His crew had put up huge speaker scaffolds all down that wide avenue for at least a half a mile! God was it loud! In some cases the performer and the audience are the same person. IMO, it is quite a stretch to call this a live performance. In some cases there is never a day and a time where the performers and the audience are all together in one place. They are often connected electronically and displaced from each other by time and space. IMO this is *not* a live performance. It is in fact very common. There was a musical performance, but there was no audience in the common meaning of audience. In some cases there never is a day and a time when even all of the performers are all together in one place. Again, they are connected electronically, and displaced from each other by time and space. IMO this is *not* a live performance. It is also in fact very common. There was a musical performance, but there was no audience in the common meaning of audience. Furthermore, even the musical performers were displaced from each other by time and/or space. The goal, as I see it, is to capture the sound of that live performance and reproduce it as faithfully in the home as possible. Most if not almost all music listened to at home was not available for capture at any live performance. "Live Performance" recordings are only a tiny minority of all commercial recordings that are available. In short my point, which is that many live performances so suboptimal as to have no appreciable public interest has been missed. I don't know how that became at all relevant. In what way does the quality of the performance matter in this discussion? The quality of the performance started mattering in this discussion when the phrase "most perfected" was introduced about 2 days ago. It's quoted above. How can there be a reasonable discussion when such basic issues are denied by people responding to posts? "Most perfected" has a specific meaning. The "most perfected" listening situation, is, as I said above, when there in nothing between the acoustic instruments being played and the listener except air. One can stretch that to mean that there is nothing between the electronic instruments, their instrument amplifiers and the listener except air, But the moment a PA system is introduced, IMO, one is no longer hearing live music. Since rock concerts ARE artificial (in that without the PA system, there would be no concert performance) You simply cannot compare the two. This is a very ignorant statement. It is quite possible to play rock music on acoustical instruments. No PA system or any electronics of any kind are required. I believe that you are grasping at straws here. Of course it's possible to play rock music on acoustic instruments, but are the great percentage of these performances GENERALLY performed that way? When one makes a general statement, I think that it's understood by most people that there are exceptions. Why didn't you understand that? I wasn't comparing the two. I didn't even mention whether or not the concert involved amplified instruments, because it really doesn't matter. Amplified musical instruments are often used with no PA system at all. It is very common for amplified instruments to have their own individual amplification systems. In essence, the electronics is an electrical analog of the usual mechanical or acoustical amplification that is built into virtually every acoustical instrument. It does not make sense to me to quibble whether or not the means of amplification is mechanical or acoustical or electrical. Once one realizes that the electronics is simply an analog, then it also doesn't matter whether or not the electronics is aggregated and shared among a number of instruments, or individualized. I don't think that either engineers or listeners should dictate to musicians how their instruments are implemented. All that should matter to us is whether or not the meet the usual artistic criteria. IOW, we should judge musical instruments based on how they sound when played by trained, skilled musicians, and not prejudge them based on their internal construction. I believe that the OP (as well as I) were speaking of unamplified instruments, i.e. "the music that I usually listen to" to which I referred. I'm the OP as the quotes at the top of this post indicate, and I would never make the kind of narrow and ignorant statements that seem to have afflicted this thread. Perhaps it was lost in the above, but we were discussion "distractions" in listening: p&c on LPs vs. coughs and program rustling at concerts. I'm truly amazed at the logical gyrations that some people will go through to deny the obvious fact that tics and pops can be very distracting to very many listeners. In fact the popularity of digital formats is partially based on the fact that almost all listeners will avoid media with tics and pops, given the choice. Furthermore, it is very common for people to complain about coughs at concerts, which are common in temperate climates for 2 or 3 months of the year. How something that is disagreeable as coughs at concerts would be seized on as a defense of endemic flaws in any particular kind of media is actually quite taxing to my imagination. The rock concert example was used because the "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at acoustic concerts. Again we have an example of an ignorant claim that rock music can't be performed acoustically, and from a source that seems to have shown that she knows better on other occasions. It is well known that musical genre and the choice of instruments are often completely orthogonal to each other. One can play classical music on electric instruments and one can play rock on acoustical instruments, right? In fact playing rock and roll on acoustical instruments has lately become stylish as a number of albums with the word "unplugged" in them shows. I believe that several have gone gold. It's still irrelevant to the overall point. |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
Keith wrote: Perhaps I'm alone in this view, but to me, what makes the "noise" a "distraction" is the contextual incongruity. While coughs can be disruptive, they, along with program rustling, and various other such minor crowd related noises don't really bother me much. In the context of an audience setting, they are "normal" background noises, and as such seldom intrude on my consciousness. Tics and pops, however, are totally incongruous, and are always disruptive and distracting. An illustration: Say you're sitting in the park having a conversation with a friend. There are kids playing and making noise, dogs barking, traffic sounds, etc. Does this bother you or intrude on your conversation? Likely not, as they are contextually familiar and "expected" sounds. Now add to this scene a clown with a 'ground pounder' who pulls in, parks, and starts sharing his/her favorite hip-hop...music...with you. This immediately becomes (at least to me) totally disruptive and distracting, irrespective of the relative sound levels (i.e. it doesn't have to be real loud, just clearly audible). It is intrusive because it's not (well, didn't use to be) part of the normal "park sound". I pretty much agree with this. It also all boils down to the amount of the noise, I suppose. A few t&p simply don't bother me. A lot of them do bother me. One that reoccurs for, say, about 3 seconds or more bothers me the most; I suppose because it creates its own "rhythm". And it's all a matter of personal tolerance, isn't it? For some, none are acceptable; for others some are. I'd rather there be none, of course ;-) |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote: A Martin solid-body electric guitar, Whoa! THERE'S a rare beast! ;-) I suspect that a Fender-Rhodes or other electric piano makes no sound without it's speakers, either. True. |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:05:13 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Dick Pierce" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: Actually, I didn't exactly contradict that. I said: "Just because the music is live doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state." The contradiction of what I said would be: "If the music is live that means that it is being heard in its most perfected state. " If you want to contradict what I said, then you're basically saying that even if a 2 year old attempts to beat out Beethoven's Ninth on his cereal bowl, that would be Beethoven's Ninth in its most highly perfected state. Is that what you mean to say? If you're attempting a "reductio ad absurdum," you need to start with the premise, and use logical steps to reach an absurd conclusion as a means of showing the premise is absurd. It doesn't work if you start with a premise and use absurd steps to reach an absurd conclusion. There seems to be a double standard here. There's no conference rule that discussions have to follow a predetermined form. All that's necessary is that they be reasonably understandable. It's quite clear that the intent of my comments was unstandable and understood. Or, more to the point, no, I see NO reason that the inevitable logical conclusion of Jenn's premise is as you state. It is very rare that any discussions here ever lead to inevitable logical conclusions. So we have yet another example of standards being made up and applied *after* the discussion point was presented. Yes, it is absurd to conclude that a 2 year old's attempts to beat out Beethoven on a cereal box is that piece in its most highly perfected state. Of course. But that conclusion is your absurdity, not hers. It's a reasonble conclusion that can be reached from an overly broad statement like: "If the music is live that means that it is being heard in its most perfected state." But Mr. Kruger, that "overly broad statement" is quite correct. Overlooking, for a moment the reality that even the parents of this mythical two-year-old aren't going to listen to him beating on a corn flake box for very long before they take it away from him ("Parents aren't interested in justice, they just want QUIET!" - Bill Cosby), that particular sound, musical or not, heard live, IS the most highly perfected state of THAT SOUND. One rather obvious problem with the above statement is that there is much music that does not ever exist as a live performance. Much music that is listened to today is constructed in the studio. The only complete form of the recording that ever exists is composed of segments and snippets, many highly processed by sound-altering hardware and software. While what you say is very true, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. Modern pop has, as you say, no sound as a live performance. Therefore the idea of it being any kind of a reference has no meaning. The listener has no idea how it's supposed to sound because he's never heard it before. We know when a violin sounds like a violin or when a saxophone sounds like a saxophone because most of us have heard these instruments in the "flesh". Thus the above is a blanket statement that music cannot be in its most perfected state unless it is live. Seems very short sighted and narrow. I don't believe that what anyone has said that. I believe the point was that live, unamplified music, played in real space, is only real when heard live and in person. Anything other than that is reproduction. The hypothetical studio music plays no part in this discussion except to muddy the waters. Now I'm not knocking "studio-produced music" I'm just saying that it's not (as far as I'm concerned and as I understand this thread) what anyone was talking about. I assumed that was understood by all. So let's be specific While I may agree with some of your assertions on the verifiable technical properties of LP playback, it's becoming apparent to me that you have moved far beyond that and have taken this on as a crusade that seems personal and borders on the ad hominem. No personalities were introduced by me into this portion of the discussion. If there are any ad hominem arguments here, then they must have been introduced by someone besides me, and are wholly products of their imaginations. |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:32:58 -0800, Keith wrote
(in article ): Jenn wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote (in article ): In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message snip I believe that the OP (as well as I) were speaking of unamplified instruments, i.e. "the music that I usually listen to" to which I referred. Perhaps it was lost in the above, but we were discussion "distractions" in listening: p&c on LPs vs. coughs and program rustling at concerts. Perhaps I'm alone in this view, but to me, what makes the "noise" a "distraction" is the contextual incongruity. While coughs can be disruptive, they, along with program rustling, and various other such minor crowd related noises don't really bother me much. In the context of an audience setting, they are "normal" background noises, and as such seldom intrude on my consciousness. Tics and pops, however, are totally incongruous, and are always disruptive and distracting. Yet they too are "normal" background noises in LP listening. To be fair, there is a difference. Coughs and program rustling as well as chair squeeks and other extraneous noises heard in a live concert are truly random and unanticipated. OTOH, once a loud tick or pop is heard on a favorite LP, it becomes anticipated with each successive playing and while that IS harder to ignore or "listen around", it's not impossible to do so. An illustration: Say you're sitting in the park having a conversation with a friend. There are kids playing and making noise, dogs barking, traffic sounds, etc. Does this bother you or intrude on your conversation? Likely not, as they are contextually familiar and "expected" sounds. Now add to this scene a clown with a 'ground pounder' who pulls in, parks, and starts sharing his/her favorite hip-hop...music...with you. This immediately becomes (at least to me) totally disruptive and distracting, irrespective of the relative sound levels (i.e. it doesn't have to be real loud, just clearly audible). It is intrusive because it's not (well, didn't use to be) part of the normal "park sound". Good point. Audio Empire |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
Keith wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: snip The rock concert example was used because the "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at acoustic concerts. Again we have an example of an ignorant claim that rock music can't be performed acoustically, and from a source that seems to have shown that she knows better on other occasions. You seem to have put and undeservedly negative interpretation on that one Arny. I took Jenn's "acoustic" moniker, in the statement above, as simple shorthand to mean "non-rock" genres. Not meaning that rock can't be "acoustic" (Jenn can correct me if I'm wrong - 'cause then she'd be :-). Reality is that the vast majority of rock concerts are *not* acoustic/un-amplified (some of the absolute best are, but that's another story), and IME, irrespective of whether the music is acoustic or amplified, rock concerts are, in every case, noisier than would be, say, a symphony performance. Crowd restraint at rock concerts is not really an expectation, and lets face it, crowds seldom rise above expectations. Keith Hughes Of course rock CAN be acoustic. I've never heard of a purely acoustic rock public performance. Have you? |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 19, 2:08=A0pm, Jenn wrote:
In article , =A0Keith wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: snip =A0The rock concert example was used because the "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at =A0acoustic concerts. Again we have an example of an ignorant claim that rock music can't b= e performed acoustically, and from a source that seems to have shown th= at she knows better on other occasions. You seem to have put and undeservedly negative interpretation on that one Arny. =A0I took Jenn's "acoustic" moniker, in the statement above, = as simple shorthand to mean "non-rock" genres. Not meaning that rock can't be "acoustic" (Jenn can correct me if I'm wrong - 'cause then she'd be :-). =A0Reality is that the vast majority of rock concerts are *not* acoustic/un-amplified (some of the absolute best are, but that's anothe= r story), and IME, irrespective of whether the music is acoustic or amplified, rock concerts are, in every case, noisier than would be, say= , a symphony performance. =A0Crowd restraint at rock concerts is not real= ly an expectation, and lets face it, crowds seldom rise above expectations= .. Keith Hughes Of course rock CAN be acoustic. =A0I've never heard of a purely acoustic rock public performance. =A0Have you?- Hide quoted text - I have seen a few on the streets of New Orleans. But they are the exception not the norm. |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
Jenn wrote: Of course rock CAN be acoustic. I've never heard of a purely acoustic rock public performance. Have you? Austin's "Unplugged at the Grove" concert series is 'purely acoustic' only by mistaken inference and is controversial as neighbors complain when sound levels exceed the 70 dB statutory limit. A band observing that limit would be in danger of being drowned out by the typically noisy crowd in attendance. Austin has great music, lousy PAs and thoughtless concert-goers. That said, the Asylum Street Spankers, while arguable not rock, are more unplugged than most: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYulEKYcCgo Stephen |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
Jenn wrote:
In article , Keith wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message snip Of course rock CAN be acoustic. I've never heard of a purely acoustic rock public performance. Have you? Yes, but then again it depends to an extent on your definition of "rock". I'm not talking about heavy metal going acoustic, but there have been some great concerts from the likes of 10,000 Maniacs, Renaissance (in days long past unfortunately), California Guitar trio, and in smaller venues a number of singer/songwriter type folks, e.g. Karla Bonoff, Tori Amos, Loreena McKinnit, etc. And a number of performances where the vocals are the only amplified "instrument", as well. As I said, not at all the norm, but often exceptional performances when they do happen. But the premise, even then, tends to hold true IME. The behavioral expectations for a symphony performance or a chamber music performance are just different than those for most rock / pop type performances, and thus the audience tends to be more raucous. Keith |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:05:11 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article ): In article , Audio Empire wrote: A Martin solid-body electric guitar, Whoa! THERE'S a rare beast! ;-) Is it? I wouldn't know. I know of only two brands of electric guitars, Fender and Martin I used Martin ONLY because I mention Fender-Rhodes in the next sentence, and figured that I'd use another brand name for "journalistic balance". If there is no such thing as a Martin solid-body, put it down to my admitted ignorance of most things rock-related, and accept my humblest apology. I suspect that a Fender-Rhodes or other electric piano makes no sound without it's speakers, either. True. |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote (in article ): In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , Audio Empire wrote: Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a concert. That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about listening to music under technically degraded conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state. In fact it is pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music heard or recorded live isn't being heard at its best. Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though you aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd like to chime in. For me, live IS the "most perfected state". I can imagine that if I attended rock concerts, for example, I wouldn't feel the same way about that music. When people talk about what they imagine, they are admitting that their comments have zero empirical or experiential base. I really don't have time to pay much attention to such things. Arny, it appears that you are trying to win a debate here, rather than discuss a topic. So I'll wrap up my contribution to you with this post, before the moderators kill the thread. All I did in my paragraph above was state that for ME, the live musical event is the "most perfected". Since the noise (what we were discussing before the distractions) is known to be much greater at the average rock concert than it is in the concerts (and other live music) that I hear, and yet I don't attend rock concerts, I said that I "can imagine" that I wouldn't consider the live rock concert to be the "most perfected state" of that music. The above is an example of narrowing the discussion far more than what it was it was originally stated. Suddenly a potentially large number of performances of a given composition have been reduced to just one performance. Huh? I'm afraid that I don't understand your statement. It appears that my comments are being buried in an avalanche of unrestrained subjectivism and perhaps even solipsism. lol Yes, I'm sure that you see solipsism when I use terms such as "for me" with great regularity. That's your problem, not mine. Given that there are many musical performances that never ever exist as a live performance, a great deal of music has been artificially excluded from the discussion. You've totally lost me. I can't help that. Obviously. Every performance is a live performance. How do you define live performance? I define live performance as an event with performers and an audience all together in one place. The music work is performed in real time. In this day and age some of the elements of the performance may be themselves recordings. In some cases the performer and the audience are the same person. IMO, it is quite a stretch to call this a live performance. I define performance as music that is played or sung live. A performance does not need to be a public event. This seems to be part of the problem. In some cases there is never a day and a time where the performers and the audience are all together in one place. They are often connected electronically and displaced from each other by time and space. IMO this is *not* a live performance. It is in fact very common. There was a musical performance, but there was no audience in the common meaning of audience. All we're doing is nitpicking what "performance" means. In the context of the discussion, I believe that it's quite clear that for the performances that **I** attend, the performers are all in the room with an audience or without an audience. snip of "debate" that goes nowhere The quality of the performance started mattering in this discussion when the phrase "most perfected" was introduced about 2 days ago. By you. It's quoted above. How can there be a reasonable discussion when such basic issues are denied by people responding to posts? Your point seemed to be that just because the music is heard live, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily being heard in it "most perfected state". For the music that **I** usually listen to, "live", i.e. the original performance of the music (with or without an audience) is the "most perfected". Since rock concerts ARE artificial (in that without the PA system, there would be no concert performance) You simply cannot compare the two. This is a very ignorant statement. Take it up with he who wrote it. But... It is quite possible to play rock music on acoustical instruments. No PA system or any electronics of any kind are required. True, of course. I've not heard a purely acoustic rock concert. Have you, or have you ever heard of one? It's uncommon, to say the least. I'm truly amazed at the logical gyrations that some people will go through to deny the obvious fact that tics and pops can be very distracting to very many listeners. Who has denied that, Arny? Please do let us know. In fact the popularity of digital formats is partially based on the fact that almost all listeners will avoid media with tics and pops, given the choice. All else being equal, so would I, of course. The rock concert example was used because the "distractions" (i.e noise) is far greater there than at acoustic concerts. Again we have an example of an ignorant claim that rock music can't be performed acoustically, and from a source that seems to have shown that she knows better on other occasions. Again, how many purely acoustic rock concerts have you ever heard of? It is well known that musical genre and the choice of instruments are often completely orthogonal to each other. One can play classical music on electric instruments and one can play rock on acoustical instruments, right? Yes. So? [ Let's end the metadiscussion, please. Back to audio-related topics, or just drop the thread. -- dsr ] |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
Keith wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Keith wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message snip Of course rock CAN be acoustic. I've never heard of a purely acoustic rock public performance. Have you? Yes, but then again it depends to an extent on your definition of "rock". I'm not talking about heavy metal going acoustic, but there have been some great concerts from the likes of 10,000 Maniacs, Renaissance (in days long past unfortunately), California Guitar trio, and in smaller venues a number of singer/songwriter type folks, e.g. Karla Bonoff, Tori Amos, Loreena McKinnit, etc. And a number of performances where the vocals are the only amplified "instrument", as well. As I said, not at all the norm, but often exceptional performances when they do happen. Really truly purely acoustic? No mics? No pickups in the acoustic guitars? Must be a VERY small room! ;-) The California Guitar Trio...OMG! They are SO good! A great bunch of guys, too. |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Scott" wrote in message
... On Dec 19, 2:08=A0pm, Jenn wrote: [quoted text deleted -- deb] Of course rock CAN be acoustic. =A0I've never heard of a purely acoustic rock public performance. =A0Have you? I have seen a few on the streets of New Orleans. But they are the exception not the norm. And they aren't rock....they come from the New Orleans Brass Band tradition...a form of jazz/fusion |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
Audio Empire wrote:
She wasn't talking about studio performances : (from what I gather from her posts)of largely electronic instruments which do : not exist outside of the studio (and in a concert environment are the result : of the ensemble carrying the "studio" with them. The difference being instead : of the output of the studio equipment being some recording device, it's a : bunch of PA speakers). : A live performance is any time musicians play in the presence of an audience : - no matter how big or small that audience might be. But the kind of live : performance being discussed here is, I believe, live, unamplified music, : played in a real space. If one isn't listening to the instruments themselves : (and when sound reinforcement is present, one is listening to the PA system's : reconstruction of those instruments, not the instruments themselves), one is : not HEARING the instruments. One is hearing and seeing the musicians playing : their instruments, but one is not listening TO those instruments. I think youk and others expressing much the same idea that there's a big divide beten (a) acoustic instruments performed live and (b) amplified instruments that aresomething else, really need to work through what an instrument actually is. The instrument, in the case of an electric guitar, is the guitar, plus the electronics used to pump out the sound. This includes the connector to the tube or SS amp, the amp itself, and the pickups on the body of the guitae that interface between the plucked strings and the downsteam parts. That's the instrument. And that's what you're listening to. In the case of an acoustic guitar, the instrument is the guitar, plus, say, picks and a slide, if the player is using those. A bowed instrument (violin, viola, bass, etc.) consists of the strings, the body they are strung across, and the bow. That's what you're listening to. I just don't see that there's some rigid difference according to which one is pure and unamplified, the other is not. *ALL* instruments (other than the human voice) involve an initial sound generator (strings, diaphram of a drum, and so forth), and SOME way of making that sound louder and different from the initially generated sound. (And if you know anything about physiology, that's exactly how the human voice works as well). As Arny pointed out, all string instruments amplify, modify, and distort the sound of the string (and the same holds true for wind instruments, whose bodies amplify, distort, and modify the sound of the reed, etc.). You'e making an artificial and silly split between aspects of amplification that involve electrons, and those that do not. Just think of what an acoustic guitar string sounds like, if it's just strung in space between two points with no resonating cavity nearby. THAT, I guess, is an unamplified, purely acoustic "instrument". Good luck getting people to listen to that on a regular basis! -- Andy Barss |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 20, 10:31=A0am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message ... On Dec 19, 2:08=3DA0pm, Jenn wrote: [quoted text deleted -- deb] Of course rock CAN be acoustic. =3DA0I've never heard of a purely acou= stic rock public performance. =3DA0Have you? I have seen a few on the streets of New Orleans. But they are the exception not the norm. And they aren't rock....they come from the New Orleans Brass Band tradition...a form of jazz/fusion As the person who actually saw that which I am refering to I will have to argue from authority. Yes there are plenty on non rock street musicans and street bands in New Orleans. But there are a few that actually play rock. When I see a group with a dobro, sax, stand up bass and miniature drum kit playing Eddie Cochran, Buddy Holly and Elvis covers I think it is fair to call it rock. |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
Perhaps just the 'eternal recurrence's...I am going to guess that long play vinyl quality was higher in the early days of 'stereo' when it was aimed mainly at the classical (and bizarrely the sound-effects market) market. AFAIK there was a fair amount of technological change and improvement in the LP format in the early days of Stereo. Since the basic material and geometry was the same all along, the improvements were mostly related to the process. One area of technological improvements that emerged related to the studio, primarily multitracking, overdubbing, and EFX. The others related to cutting and duplication. Cartridges, tone arms, and turntables also improved, especially in the area of cost-effectiveness. About 10 years before the introduction of the CD it was pretty clear that the rate of worthwhile improvements to the cutting and duplication process had pretty well worked themselves out, and that dramatic changes such as optical recording and digital encoding were required for further improvements. It was not clear until the near the end exactly what the next step would be. The alternative enhanced technologies involved RF and FM. By the 1980s LPs were mass market and vinyl quality was routinely $hit (this is memory, not guessing). And so to digital. Actually, vinyl quality was crap all along, if you included 45 rpm singles as part of that technology. The geometry was wrong, the packaging was slipshod, and materials quality could be literally bottom of the barrel (of reground records). Towards the end there was some work on materials quality and disc construction, which led to some really thin disks. Perhaps counter-intuitively, thin discs are not necessarily a problem, and thick discs are not necessarily an improvement. Wonder if it will play out the same way now. Costs and distribution latency are being cut to ribbons by downloads and fixed media digital players. IOW, it is now possible to cut costs without sacrificing sound quality. |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Perhaps just the 'eternal recurrence's...I am going to guess that long play vinyl quality was higher in the early days of 'stereo' when it was aimed mainly at the classical (and bizarrely the sound-effects market) market. AFAIK there was a fair amount of technological change and improvement in the LP format in the early days of Stereo. Since the basic material and geometry was the same all along, the improvements were mostly related to the process. One area of technological improvements that emerged related to the studio, primarily multitracking, overdubbing, and EFX. The others related to cutting and duplication. Cartridges, tone arms, and turntables also improved, especially in the area of cost-effectiveness. The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were concerned) was in 1957-58. Multitrack recorders and studio effects didn't come into widespread use until the late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off. About 10 years before the introduction of the CD it was pretty clear that the rate of worthwhile improvements to the cutting and duplication process had pretty well worked themselves out, and that dramatic changes such as optical recording and digital encoding were required for further improvements. It was not clear until the near the end exactly what the next step would be. The alternative enhanced technologies involved RF and FM. So from about '73 to '83, vinyl recording was maxed out. I can buy this .... it conincided (not coincidently) with perhaps the finest recorded studio sounds and LP reproduction that pop groups ever had. By the 1980s LPs were mass market and vinyl quality was routinely $hit (this is memory, not guessing). And so to digital. Actually, vinyl quality was crap all along, if you included 45 rpm singles as part of that technology. The geometry was wrong, the packaging was slipshod, and materials quality could be literally bottom of the barrel (of reground records). Towards the end there was some work on materials quality and disc construction, which led to some really thin disks. Perhaps counter-intuitively, thin discs are not necessarily a problem, and thick discs are not necessarily an improvement. Actually, vinyl quality was not a widespread problem until the '80's. The quote above yours was correct. Also, anybody who bought both thin vinyl and thick vinyl has known from experience that thin vinyl warps more readily and more severely. Wonder if it will play out the same way now. Costs and distribution latency are being cut to ribbons by downloads and fixed media digital players. IOW, it is now possible to cut costs without sacrificing sound quality. |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 21, 6:20=A0am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
So from about '73 to '83, vinyl recording was maxed out. =A0I can buy thi= s ... it conincided (not coincidently) with perhaps the finest recorded studio sounds and LP reproduction that pop groups ever had. Not even close. One would be pretty hard pressed to find much of anything between 1975 and 1983 that sounded decent. 1956- 1974 was filled with studio recorded marvels when it comes to sonic excellence. Roy Orbison, Elvis, Johnny Cash, Joan Baez, Joni Mitchell, Cat Stevens, Pink Floyd, Don McLean, Donovan, Nat King Cole, Fairport Convention, John Renbourn just to name a few off the top of my head all recorded amazing sounding studio albums before 1975. Yes there were still quite a few gems being recorded in 73 and 74 that is why I shifted the dates. I think if one were to make a list of great sounding studio recordings from 1975 -1983 it would be quite short. Multitrack was a blessing for inovation in composition and arrangements for artists but mostly a curse for sound quality. This was especially true as the sound boards moved away from tubes and toward cheap SS technology. All the so called advances in studio technology during the late seventies and early eighties were not helping the sound quality at all. This was in many ways one of the dark ages of recording (even more so for classical but that was not because of studio techniques or studio technology). Unfortunately we have been in a second dark age of recording with the loudness wars. Ironically it was after the advent of the CD that some of the most substantial sonic advancements in vinyl playback technology came to be. We went through a sort of renaissance when it came to real advancement in the state of the art of vinyl playback during that time. Before the advent of CD one could argue that the early Linn Sondek represented the state of the art for sonic excellence. By 10 years later we had seen The Goldman Reference, the Versa Dynamics, The Rockport Sirius, The Basis Debute Gold and the Forsell Air Reference. These rigs represented a huge leap in sound quality over anything that preceded them. Maybe it was the threat of CDs that lit a fire under the designers of vinyl playback gear. That of course was followed by this amazing renaissance/golden age of audiophile vinyl production that we are now enjoying. |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 05:17:34 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Perhaps just the 'eternal recurrence's...I am going to guess that long play vinyl quality was higher in the early days of 'stereo' when it was aimed mainly at the classical (and bizarrely the sound-effects market) market. AFAIK there was a fair amount of technological change and improvement in the LP format in the early days of Stereo. Since the basic material and geometry was the same all along, the improvements were mostly related to the process. One area of technological improvements that emerged related to the studio, primarily multitracking, overdubbing, and EFX. The others related to cutting and duplication. Cartridges, tone arms, and turntables also improved, especially in the area of cost-effectiveness. First of all, it's highly debatable that multitracking, overdubbing, and EFX were "improvements" especially with regards to classical music or jazz. The worst sounding records I have are multi-tracked abominations from Columbia, RCA and London done during the late sixties and early seventies. They mostly sound like someone lined-up an 80 piece orchestra across a stage in a single line (because each instrument was miked separately, and then pan-potted into position - Yechhh!) and many are extremely harsh - to the point of being distorted sounding (due to early transistor gear). The CD remasterings are no better in that regard. Cutting benefitted from variable-pitch lathes which increased or decreased the pitch (number of grooves per inch) according to the maximum excursion of the cutting stylus. Soft passages could have more grooves per inch, loud passages, fewer. This helped to extend the length of an LP side while allowing more excursion for really loud passages reducing the need for pre-cutting compression and increasing dynamic range. Cutting heads received higher power amplifiers during this time and better stylus feedback circuits. Most people don't realize what a marvel a cutting head is. Most just assume that's it's like a phono cartridge- only in reverse. That's a real rough analogy. They are very sophisticated and quite cantankerous. It could, in the 60's, take as much as 60 Watts of power to get the stylus to move at all (when cutting) and just a few more Watts to burn the thing out. As solid state amps allowed for even more power, the cutting heads became even less efficient. This might seem counterintuitive, but it actually resulted in lower distortion by allowing for finer control of the cutting stylus through motion feedback. By the 1970's, computer control of the cutting equipment was becoming widespread. This automated a lot of the tasks that had been strictly manual. While I do not think that the computer automation of the cutting process resulted in better sound, it did cut down on the number of spoiled masters because it resulted in more precise set-up and less guesswork. Turntables improved when people like Edgar Villchur of Acoustic Research (AR) and Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn realized that a turntable was a system and started to address things like air and structure-borne feedback by suspending the platter and arm mount on sprung subassemblies and isolating the platter and arm from the motor. The highly regarded AR turntable and the LInn Sondeck LP-12 were the result of this research. About 10 years before the introduction of the CD it was pretty clear that the rate of worthwhile improvements to the cutting and duplication process had pretty well worked themselves out, and that dramatic changes such as optical recording and digital encoding were required for further improvements. It was not clear until the near the end exactly what the next step would be. The alternative enhanced technologies involved RF and FM. RF and FM were applied to vinyl in the form of JVC's CD-4 or "Quadradisk" format. Adopted by record companies like RCA. Atlantic, Warner, etc., this was a way to encode four discrete channels of sound onto a single stereo LP. It worked a bit like FM stereo. Each groove wall carried a composite signal representing the front + rear (f+r) channel information for that stereo LP channel (left or right). Therefore, when played back with a regular two-channel stereo system, the listener would hear the rear channels folded into the front channels and would thus hear the entire program (much as FM stereo can be listened to in mono without losing either left or right channel information). Also on the CD-4 disc was a subcarrier for each stereo channel. This subcarrier was located above the audible spectrum and extended to 50 KHz and contained a matrix signal designated as front MINUS rear or f-r. With the proper cartridge and stylus (called a Shibata stylus shape after it's inventor at JVC) and a dedicated pre-amp/ decoder the subcarrier would be detected, stripped off and used to do an electronic matrix decode for each of the two stereo channels thusly: Whe Lf = Left front, Lr = Left rear, Rf = Right front and Rr = Right rear: Left channel = Lf+Lr + (Lf -Lr) = 2Lf Lf+Lr - (Lf-Lr) = 2Lr Right Channel = Rf+Rr + (Rf-Rr) = 2Rf Rf+R - (Rf-Rr) = 2Rr As can be seen; from two channels, each carrying an ultrasonic subcarrier, we glean four discrete signals (the 2's in front of each equation product don't have any electrical meaning). While it was a good idea and it fostered some real innovations in LP manufacturing, vinyl chemistry, not to mention cartridge and stylus profile design, which were applicable to ALL LPs, not just quadraphonic discs, the system never worked very well. the cartridges never were up to the wide, peak-free bandwidth required to get a good subcarrier signal, and playback was similarly de-railed by warped records, dirt in the grooves, poor initial alignment of the cartridge in the arm, and not least of all, indifferent manufacturing. The resultant "quad" was often distorted, noisy, and the effect dropped in and out. While I'm sure that these problems could have been solved, in time, the fact was that quadraphonic sound was a fad. There were so many different competing formats and the buying public was so confused by them, that they decided to stay away and buy nothing. So, before CD-4, which had been rushed to market, could get the bugs ironed out, the quadraphonic craze had died. By the 1980s LPs were mass market and vinyl quality was routinely $hit (this is memory, not guessing). And so to digital. Actually, vinyl quality was crap all along, if you included 45 rpm singles as part of that technology. The geometry was wrong, the packaging was slipshod, and materials quality could be literally bottom of the barrel (of reground records). Major label's classical offerings used NO regrind. Virgin vinyl only. Lots of pop recordings did use regrind as did some budget classical labels. They were always nosier than the major label's best classical offerings. Towards the end there was some work on materials quality and disc construction, which led to some really thin disks. Perhaps counter-intuitively, thin discs are not necessarily a problem, and thick discs are not necessarily an improvement. I have some Dyna-discs from RCA. When these ultra-thin, ultra light-weight records came out, the record collecting community eyed them suspiciously as merely a cost-cutting ploy. We called them "Dyna-Warp" then. Surprisingly, ironically, and somewhat to our chagrin, 30-years on, these RCA "Dyna-Warp" records HAVEN'T warped. Not a one of them!! Wonder if it will play out the same way now. Costs and distribution latency are being cut to ribbons by downloads and fixed media digital players. IOW, it is now possible to cut costs without sacrificing sound quality. Only if lossless compression (or no compression) is used. Your average teen and young adult who downloads music through iTunes etc., doesn't seem to care about quality at all. Everything that I have ever bought from iTunes sounds lousy when compared to the same performance ripped on one's own computer from the actual CD using lossless compression schemes. The difference is astonishing. The iTunes downloads are surprisingly bad sounding. |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Scott" wrote in message
Ironically it was after the advent of the CD that some of the most substantial sonic advancements in vinyl playback technology came to be. Do they have names? Are they the results of research by recognized universities and research laboratories? Are there referreed technical papers describing them? Do they have measurable effects that have been measured and posted on the web by indepdendent parties? |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:16:02 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ): On Dec 21, 6:20=A0am, "Harry Lavo" wrote: So from about '73 to '83, vinyl recording was maxed out. =A0I can buy thi= s ... it conincided (not coincidently) with perhaps the finest recorded studio sounds and LP reproduction that pop groups ever had. By the 1980s LPs were mass market and vinyl quality was routinely $hit (this is memory, not guessing). And so to digital. Actually, vinyl quality was crap all along, if you included 45 rpm sing= les as part of that technology. The geometry was wrong, the packaging was slipshod, and materials quality could be literally bottom of the barrel (of reground records). =A0Towards the end there was some work on materials quality and disc construction, which led to some really thin disks. Perhaps counter-intuitively, thin discs are not necessarily a problem, and thic= k discs are not necessarily an improvement. Actually, vinyl quality was not a widespread problem until the '80's. =A0= The quote above yours was correct. I can't speak to the 80's having dropped out of the music market for a time after graduating from college only to return in the late 80's and find the record stores had no records. But IME of record buying in the 70's, quality was a huge issue. Didn't RCA Victor introduce the "dynaflex" record in '69? ScottW Yes, that was it, Dynaflex! I have dozens of them. Contrary to my belief THEN, not a ONE of them has ever warped! The system worked - as advertised. Too bad Dynagroove wasn't as good. |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Perhaps just the 'eternal recurrence's...I am going to guess that long play vinyl quality was higher in the early days of 'stereo' when it was aimed mainly at the classical (and bizarrely the sound-effects market) market. AFAIK there was a fair amount of technological change and improvement in the LP format in the early days of Stereo. Since the basic material and geometry was the same all along, the improvements were mostly related to the process. One area of technological improvements that emerged related to the studio, primarily multitracking, overdubbing, and EFX. The others related to cutting and duplication. Cartridges, tone arms, and turntables also improved, especially in the area of cost-effectiveness. The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were concerned) was in 1957-58. Multitrack recorders and studio effects didn't come into widespread use until the late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off. The above appears to be a rather fact-challenged personal intrepretation, followed by an argument with that interpretation. For example according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...rack_recording Overdubbing commenced in 1948: "In 1948 Crosby gave Paul one of the first production units of the new Ampex Model 200 reel-to-reel tape recorder. Within hours, Paul had the idea of modifying the machine by the addition of extra recording and playback heads which could allow him to simultaneously record a new track whilst monitoring the playback of previously recorded tracks." Multitracking commenced in 1955: "Ampex released the first commercial multitrack recorders in 1955, naming the process "Sel-Sync" (Selective Synchronous Recording). Coinciding the advent of full frequency range recording (FFRR), stereo and the high-fidelity microgroove vinyl LP format, multitrack recorders soon became indispensable to vocalists like Crosby and Nat "King" Cole. About 10 years before the introduction of the CD it was pretty clear that the rate of worthwhile improvements to the cutting and duplication process had pretty well worked themselves out, and that dramatic changes such as optical recording and digital encoding were required for further improvements. It was not clear until the near the end exactly what the next step would be. The alternative enhanced technologies involved RF and FM. So from about '73 to '83, vinyl recording was maxed out. Right. I can buy this ... it conincided (not coincidently) with perhaps the finest recorded studio sounds and LP reproduction that pop groups ever had. The finest recorded studio sounds were obviously irrelevant to vinyl. They were done on magnetic tape. By the 1980s LPs were mass market and vinyl quality was routinely $hit (this is memory, not guessing). And so to digital. Actually, vinyl quality was crap all along, if you included 45 rpm singles as part of that technology. The geometry was wrong, the packaging was slipshod, and materials quality could be literally bottom of the barrel (of reground records). Towards the end there was some work on materials quality and disc construction, which led to some really thin disks. Perhaps counter-intuitively, thin discs are not necessarily a problem, and thick discs are not necessarily an improvement. Actually, vinyl quality was not a widespread problem until the '80's. Absent any outside support, that would be an unfounded assertion. Many of found that vinyl quality was always tenuous, and if anything became more tenuous as it became more popular. Also, anybody who bought both thin vinyl and thick vinyl has known from experience that thin vinyl warps more readily and more severely. Absent any outside support, that would alson unfounded assertion. I've purchased both and used both and found that both can easily become warped so badly that the warping creates audible FM distortion. So, the claim that "anybody who bought both thin vinyl and thick vinyl has known from experience that thin vinyl warps more readily and more severely" is falsified by my personal experience. |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:20:53 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Perhaps just the 'eternal recurrence's...I am going to guess that long play vinyl quality was higher in the early days of 'stereo' when it was aimed mainly at the classical (and bizarrely the sound-effects market) market. AFAIK there was a fair amount of technological change and improvement in the LP format in the early days of Stereo. Since the basic material and geometry was the same all along, the improvements were mostly related to the process. One area of technological improvements that emerged related to the studio, primarily multitracking, overdubbing, and EFX. The others related to cutting and duplication. Cartridges, tone arms, and turntables also improved, especially in the area of cost-effectiveness. The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were concerned) was in 1957-58. Multitrack recorders and studio effects didn't come into widespread use until the late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off. The first stereo LP made using the Westrex 45/45 system was a disc put out by a company called Audio Fidelity. They actually released a test cutting made for them by Westrex in direct defiance of an agreement they signed NOT to release the record. Westrex had a similar agreement with all record companies that no stereo records would be released until 1959. The time that Westrex felt they needed to perfect the system. Of course, to make sure that this agreement would be kept, Westrex mixed white noise with the test recordings making then unsalable. Each company interested in stereo would send Westrex a cutting master tape. Westrex would cut a demo disc (after mixing in a bit of the aforementioned noise), and send it back to the record company for evaluation purposes. Audio Fidellty figured, what the hey, and plated the master and started manufacturing stereo discs in spite of the agreement and the noise. "The Brave Bulls - La Fiesta Brava" hit the market in late 1957, and the stsreo record was off and running. By mid 1958, companies like RCA Victor, Columbia, Capitol, etc., all had stereo discs on the shelves. Early stereo recordings were all either two or three-channel (left, center. right) with the center channel used either for the mono release (records were dual inventory in those days) or was blended equally into the right and left channels. Overdubbing and artificial reverb is credited to a guitar player and pop producer Les Paul and came about in the late '40's. Paul used to record in his home with his then wife, Mary Ford, a former country-western singer from the big-band era. Their first big hit, was, I believe "How High The Moon" , released in 1951. But in 1948. Paul, working on his own, using the recently invented tape recorder, had been experimenting with overdubbing. In his garage, he had recorded a version of the song 'Lover" in which he played EIGHT different guitar parts. When a Capitol Records producer heard it, it was immediately released. and became a hit. By 1951. Paul had married singer Mary Ford and with "How High the Moon" had combined himself doing multiple guitar parts along with Mary ford singing duets with herself and the addition of artificial reverb (accomplished with an endless loop of tape and multiple play-back heads situated a few millimeters apart). The result was astounding (in its day) and the record sold millions. Multitrack came along in the mid-sixties and while a useful tool for pop music, it was a disaster for classical and jazz. Multitrack classical recordings (especially the early ones using first-gen transistor electronics), for the most part, sound simply dreadful. About 10 years before the introduction of the CD it was pretty clear that the rate of worthwhile improvements to the cutting and duplication process had pretty well worked themselves out, and that dramatic changes such as optical recording and digital encoding were required for further improvements. It was not clear until the near the end exactly what the next step would be. The alternative enhanced technologies involved RF and FM. So from about '73 to '83, vinyl recording was maxed out. I can buy this ... it conincided (not coincidently) with perhaps the finest recorded studio sounds and LP reproduction that pop groups ever had. By the 1980s LPs were mass market and vinyl quality was routinely $hit (this is memory, not guessing). And so to digital. Actually, vinyl quality was crap all along, if you included 45 rpm singles as part of that technology. The geometry was wrong, the packaging was slipshod, and materials quality could be literally bottom of the barrel (of reground records). Towards the end there was some work on materials quality and disc construction, which led to some really thin disks. Perhaps counter-intuitively, thin discs are not necessarily a problem, and thick discs are not necessarily an improvement. Actually, vinyl quality was not a widespread problem until the '80's. The quote above yours was correct. Also, anybody who bought both thin vinyl and thick vinyl has known from experience that thin vinyl warps more readily and more severely. Except for RCA's Dyna-Disc process. I have a number of these thin, floppy LPs. Not a one has warped in 30 years. OTOH, other cheap, thin LPs do warp much more readily than do the thicker ones! |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 21, 1:39=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message Ironically it was after the advent of the CD that some of the most substantial sonic advancements in vinyl playback technology came to be. Do they have names? Not sure what you mean. Are they the results of research by recognized universities and research laboratories? Oh yeah, for sure. Are there referreed technical papers describing them? I would be very surprised if there weren't any such papers on the sort of technology utilized by Goldmund, Versa, Rockport, Forsell and Basis. None of the technology was new to the world. It was just new in it's implimentation for vinyl playback. Do they have measurable effects that have been measured and posted on the web by indepdendent parties? Yes the effects are measurable. I don't know what has been posted on the web. |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Scott" wrote in message
I would be very surprised if there weren't any such papers on the sort of technology utilized by Goldmund, Versa, Rockport, Forsell and Basis. IOW, no supporting facts at all - 100% speculation. None of the technology was new to the world. It was just new in it's implimentation for vinyl playback. More likely - no effective new technology at all - just polished metal and plastic in cosmetically different shapes. |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:24:41 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:20:53 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were concerned) was in 1957-58. Multitrack recorders and studio effects didn't come into widespread use until the late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off. Multitrack came along in the mid-sixties and while a useful tool for pop music, it was a disaster for classical and jazz. Multitrack classical recordings (especially the early ones using first-gen transistor electronics), for the most part, sound simply dreadful. Indeed, Columbia was pretty heavy into classical multi-tracking already in the 1960s. For example, all of the E. Power Biggs recordings done on the Flentrop organ at Harvard were multi- tracked, starting in the early 1960's. Great instrument, interesting performances, somewhat weird recordings. Yes, Columbia was especially heavy-handed wrt multitracking. My '"favorite" example was Resphigi's "Church Windows" with Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra. Great performance, wonderful orchestral piece, lousy sound. Then there was British Decca (London) with their 'Phase-4' recordings and EMI had something similar as well - terrible. RCA's excesses seemed to stem mostly from a Red Seal producer in the 70's named J. David Saks. I got into a heated argument with him one year at the Audio Engineering Society Convention in NYC. I told him that his recordings sucked and he disagreed. What can I tell you? 8^) |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 22, 6:01=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message I would be very surprised if there weren't any such papers on the sort of technology utilized by Goldmund, Versa, Rockport, Forsell and Basis. IOW, no supporting facts at all - 100% speculation. Not at all Arny. Just because I didn't really want to go on some easter egg hunt for papers on the technology that went into those products doesn't mean there are no supporting facts. The technologies that were utilized by the makers of those rigs is most definitely based in science. There is no Peter Beltian trickery going on there. We are talking about things like active pneumatic suspensions, low tolerance high preasure airbearings, Use of materials with much better wieght to stiffness ratios than anything used before etc etc etc. There is no voodoo here. It is all based in engineering and science. But I am not going to try to find some paper that proves an airbearing works or that an active pneumatic isolation system works. If you want to believe such technologies are not based in sound engineering and science that is your choice. IMO it is so obvious that the technologies used in these rigs is so clearly based in science and engineering that it is not worth debating. None of the technology was new to the world. It was just new in it's implimentation for vinyl playback. More likely - no effective new technology at all - just polished metal an= d plastic in cosmetically different shapes. Now that is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. What were your exact words? Oh yeah "IOW, no supporting facts at all - 100% speculation." What actual facts did you use to determine the variables that lead you to assert the alleged level of "likelyhood" that the rigs in question had no "effective new technology?" wouldn't you have to actually know what technology was involved for starters? |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Scott" wrote in message
On Dec 22, 6:01=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message I would be very surprised if there weren't any such papers on the sort of technology utilized by Goldmund, Versa, Rockport, Forsell and Basis. IOW, no supporting facts at all - 100% speculation. Not at all Arny. Just because I didn't really want to go on some easter egg hunt for papers on the technology that went into those products doesn't mean there are no supporting facts. That's the high price of credibility - actually being able to document one's claims. Yes, it can take a little work. I see no documentation of some pretty expectional claims. |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:20:53 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Perhaps just the 'eternal recurrence's...I am going to guess that long play vinyl quality was higher in the early days of 'stereo' when it was aimed mainly at the classical (and bizarrely the sound-effects market) market. AFAIK there was a fair amount of technological change and improvement in the LP format in the early days of Stereo. Since the basic material and geometry was the same all along, the improvements were mostly related to the process. One area of technological improvements that emerged related to the studio, primarily multitracking, overdubbing, and EFX. The others related to cutting and duplication. Cartridges, tone arms, and turntables also improved, especially in the area of cost-effectiveness. The "early days of stereo" (so far as LP's were concerned) was in 1957-58. Multitrack recorders and studio effects didn't come into widespread use until the late '60's/early '70's. Your timeline is off. The first stereo LP made using the Westrex 45/45 system was a disc put out by a company called Audio Fidelity. They actually released a test cutting made for them by Westrex in direct defiance of an agreement they signed NOT to release the record. Westrex had a similar agreement with all record companies that no stereo records would be released until 1959. The time that Westrex felt they needed to perfect the system. Of course, to make sure that this agreement would be kept, Westrex mixed white noise with the test recordings making then unsalable. Each company interested in stereo would send Westrex a cutting master tape. Westrex would cut a demo disc (after mixing in a bit of the aforementioned noise), and send it back to the record company for evaluation purposes. Audio Fidellty figured, what the hey, and plated the master and started manufacturing stereo discs in spite of the agreement and the noise. "The Brave Bulls - La Fiesta Brava" hit the market in late 1957, and the stsreo record was off and running. By mid 1958, companies like RCA Victor, Columbia, Capitol, etc., all had stereo discs on the shelves. Early stereo recordings were all either two or three-channel (left, center. right) with the center channel used either for the mono release (records were dual inventory in those days) or was blended equally into the right and left channels. Overdubbing and artificial reverb is credited to a guitar player and pop producer Les Paul and came about in the late '40's. Paul used to record in his home with his then wife, Mary Ford, a former country-western singer from the big-band era. Their first big hit, was, I believe "How High The Moon" , released in 1951. But in 1948. Paul, working on his own, using the recently invented tape recorder, had been experimenting with overdubbing. In his garage, he had recorded a version of the song 'Lover" in which he played EIGHT different guitar parts. When a Capitol Records producer heard it, it was immediately released. and became a hit. By 1951. Paul had married singer Mary Ford and with "How High the Moon" had combined himself doing multiple guitar parts along with Mary ford singing duets with herself and the addition of artificial reverb (accomplished with an endless loop of tape and multiple play-back heads situated a few millimeters apart). The result was astounding (in its day) and the record sold millions. Multitrack came along in the mid-sixties and while a useful tool for pop music, it was a disaster for classical and jazz. Multitrack classical recordings (especially the early ones using first-gen transistor electronics), for the most part, sound simply dreadful. Thank you for confirming that my memory hasn't slipped that much. Essentially this is the timeline I suggested in the paragraph above. I certainly knew Les Paul invented overdubbing way back in the forties (my dad actually knew him since he did many of the circa '40's era tape instalations.) We had all his early recordings at home. But multitracking for pop as we know it took off in the mid-late sixties as both you and I state above. About 10 years before the introduction of the CD it was pretty clear that the rate of worthwhile improvements to the cutting and duplication process had pretty well worked themselves out, and that dramatic changes such as optical recording and digital encoding were required for further improvements. It was not clear until the near the end exactly what the next step would be. The alternative enhanced technologies involved RF and FM. So from about '73 to '83, vinyl recording was maxed out. I can buy this ... it conincided (not coincidently) with perhaps the finest recorded studio sounds and LP reproduction that pop groups ever had. By the 1980s LPs were mass market and vinyl quality was routinely $hit (this is memory, not guessing). And so to digital. Actually, vinyl quality was crap all along, if you included 45 rpm singles as part of that technology. The geometry was wrong, the packaging was slipshod, and materials quality could be literally bottom of the barrel (of reground records). Towards the end there was some work on materials quality and disc construction, which led to some really thin disks. Perhaps counter-intuitively, thin discs are not necessarily a problem, and thick discs are not necessarily an improvement. Actually, vinyl quality was not a widespread problem until the '80's. The quote above yours was correct. Also, anybody who bought both thin vinyl and thick vinyl has known from experience that thin vinyl warps more readily and more severely. Except for RCA's Dyna-Disc process. I have a number of these thin, floppy LPs. Not a one has warped in 30 years. OTOH, other cheap, thin LPs do warp much more readily than do the thicker ones! Again, thanks for confirming my observation. |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 22, 4:25=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message On Dec 22, 6:01=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message I would be very surprised if there weren't any such papers on the sort of technology utilized by Goldmund, Versa, Rockport, Forsell and Basis. IOW, no supporting facts at all - 100% speculation. Not at all Arny. Just because I didn't really want to go on some easter egg hunt for papers on the technology that went into those products doesn't mean there are no supporting facts. That's the high price of credibility - actually being able to document on= e's claims. I said I wasn't interested not that I wasn't able. But if you are worried about credibility you might want to think twice before asking for someone cite scientific papers supporting technology like low tolerance high preasure airbearings, modern composite materials that offer lower mass and higher stiffness or active pneumatic suspensions for isolation. Yes, it can take a little work. I see no documentation of some pretty expectional claims. Again if you are really worried about credibility you might want to reconcider your assertion that my claims are exceptional. You really doubt there is science behind things like low tolerance high preasure airbearings, modern low mass high stiffness materials or active pneumatic suspensions? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
NYTimes article - Stereo Sanctuaries | High End Audio | |||
NYTimes is despicable | Audio Opinions | |||
MIX featured in "Soul Plane" | Pro Audio | |||
MIX featured in "Soul Plane" | Pro Audio | |||
MIX featured in "Soul Plane" | Pro Audio |