Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #361   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:


Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


On 11 Jul 2005 00:53:12 GMT, Jenn wrote:

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung

wrote:

I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came out,
and
it
was
a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC, and
my
friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could not
get
over
the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD
right
then,
and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or the
vinyl
LP
version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind.

That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is less of
an
issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree?

Interesting that you respond only to Chung's note, rather than the
anecdote he's responding to.

Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously thought the digital chain sounded
more
like the *band playing live at the same time* than the Studer.

1. Does this band really record while all playing at the same time?
If so, they are the exception to common practice.

WHo says all the band were listening? I presume it was just Nichols
and
Fagan. Remember, they were listening for which chain sounded more
like a
band playing live..

But if the band never played the recording live in the studio....

They did however play the songs *many* times on tour, so one must
suppose that they knew what sounded most like a live performance.


Please believe that this isn't intended as a "flame", but I must say
that this part of the discussion has taken a tract that I find simply
astonishing! People on your "side" of this issue often speak of the
need to carefully adjust for output volume, test blindly, etc. in order
to get a valid listening test. I understand this desire. But then you
are using, as a point of debate here about Nichols, Fagan, et al
preferring the digital sound for the recording under discussion, a
recording for which the "original sound" never existed (i.e. the
musicians never played all together in the studio)!


You know this with such certainlyu *how*?

Meaning, you know this for sure, in direct contradiction to what Nichols,
who was there, recounts...how?


The presumption is that they didn't make the recording with all players
and singers performing at once because that is the way it is/was usually
done. Did Nichols say otherwise?



Meaning, you *don't* know. Thanks.

Now I have a question: Has Nichols said that a band's worth of performers
was never gathered in a studio when SD recorded? Because I have read otherwise.

Besides, do you *seriously* imagine* that if Roger Nichols and Donald Fagan
wanted a band to play in the studio , for the purpose of
comparing that sound to the sound of the Studer and the new digital recorder,
they couldn't arrange for that to occur?


This presumption that he simply *could not* have had a band play a song live
in the studio -- just because Steely Dan, like many acts since the 70's,
tended not to release 'live in the studio' recordings -- is absurd.
SD could and did have a band's worth of
musicians on hand; doubtless they could have them rehearse,
set down guide versions, warm up together...or play on request so
Nichols could compare his two rigs. No reason to believe Fagan
did things differently as a solo act.


But again, there are many presumptions there. "A band's worth of
musicians on hand"? "Rehearse"? "Warm up"?


The idea that these are outrageously unlikely occurences, when a SD/Fagan
album was being recorded circa 1983, is the far more absurd presumption here.

All I am saying is that you
folks argue in favor of matched level listening down to a couple of dB,
etc to make legit listening comparisons, then you also argue about the
listening comparison of a recording of an event that probably never
actually took place live! It seems like a contradiction to me.


There is no contradiction, there is only a fantastic presumption on
your part, which you seem to stick to merely to prop up your prejudice.
Your presumption of what is 'probable' is contradicted *directly*
by the testimony of the recording engineer himself, as well as by
common studio practice. The final recording is never the entire
picture of a series of recording sessions. An obsessively overdubbed
final product is not sufficient logical grounds to assert that musicians
'probably never' played together in the studio during the sessions....
or that they 'probably never' were even *there* all at the same time.

So if Roger Nichols claims he had a
band play in the studio -- particularly in the course of recounting an
equipment comparison trial -- there's no
sensible reason to assert that he 'probably' didn't. His comparison
method *is* certainly open to rational critique, but you've
picked the weakest, most irrational of legs to stand on.



--

-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'
  #362   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 11 Jul 2005 00:53:12 GMT, Jenn wrote:

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung

wrote:

I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came out,
and
it
was
a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC,
and my
friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could not
get
over
the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD
right
then,
and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or the
vinyl
LP
version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind.

That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is less
of an
issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree?

Interesting that you respond only to Chung's note, rather than
the
anecdote he's responding to.

Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously thought the digital chain sounded
more
like the *band playing live at the same time* than the Studer.

1. Does this band really record while all playing at the same
time?
If so, they are the exception to common practice.

WHo says all the band were listening? I presume it was just Nichols
and
Fagan. Remember, they were listening for which chain sounded more
like a
band playing live..

But if the band never played the recording live in the studio....

They did however play the songs *many* times on tour, so one must
suppose that they knew what sounded most like a live performance.

Please believe that this isn't intended as a "flame", but I must say
that this part of the discussion has taken a tract that I find simply
astonishing! People on your "side" of this issue often speak of the
need to carefully adjust for output volume, test blindly, etc. in order
to get a valid listening test. I understand this desire. But then you
are using, as a point of debate here about Nichols, Fagan, et al
preferring the digital sound for the recording under discussion, a
recording for which the "original sound" never existed (i.e. the
musicians never played all together in the studio)!

You know this with such certainlyu *how*?

Meaning, you know this for sure, in direct contradiction to what Nichols,
who was there, recounts...how?

This presumption that he simply *could not* have had a band play a song
live
in the studio -- just because Steely Dan, like many acts since the 70's,
tended not to release 'live in the studio' recordings -- is absurd.
SD could and did have a band's worth of
musicians on hand; doubtless they could have them rehearse,
set down guide versions, warm up together...or play on request so
Nichols could compare his two rigs. No reason to believe Fagan
did things differently as a solo act.



What Jenn appeared to miss is that the SD/Nichols experience was *NOT* a
listening test to rigorously determine if there were any sonic
differences between one source and another. It is simply an account, by
Nichols, of what SD/Nichols felt at the time they were trying to
evaluate the sound quality of the digital recorder. No one on "our side"
has said that it was a proof of the superiority of digital. It is simply
an anecdote to support the fact that there are widely respected audio
pros who prefer digital recording, even back in the early '80's when the
equipment was still crude compared to today's.

SD/Nichols certainly had the ability to compare live sounds vs recorded
sound. They could simply record individual tracks (like a drum solo for
instance) and compare live vs. recorded versions.

If we had used this anecdote as scientific proof that the digital audio
recorder is better than the analog tape recorder, then Jenn would have a
strong position to question whether level matching was done. Which
Nichols could easily have done, btw.


It was my understanding that a poster was using Nichols et al statements
as showing that they believed that digital was superior to analogue
based on the recording in question: "Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously
thought the digital chain sounded more like the *band playing live at
the same time* than the Studer." I simply point out that this condition
never actually happened, i.e. the band didn't play all at the same time
in the session, most likely.


I thought you were explicitly asking about the need for controls, and
being "astonished" that "our side" has brought up a "listening test"
with no controls in place as "a point of debate"?

And how do you know that the band (or some members of the band) could
not have been playing at the same time, so that Nichols/Fagen could do a
comparison between the recorders and the live performance?

If what another poster has since written,
that the session was only recorded in analogue, and what we are really
discussing is a remastering of the analogue recording (sorry, I'm not
familiar with the recording, the session, or the work of the band beyond
what I've heard on the radio), then my point is even stronger, as we are
relying on the distant memory of Nichols et al of what the session
sounded like; a session where, again, the musicians probably never
played together in the first place.


Again, this is not a rigorous listening test to tell subtle differences
apart. And of course, the band or some members of the band can surely
provide a reference.

Contrast that to your claim that vinyl is more likelike than CD. In the
majority of those comparisons you were not present in the recording
sessions, and did not even have memory to base your comparisons on.


Similarly, when we heard Jenn's account of how vinyl was more life-like
to her compared to CD, we did not ask whether she did a level-matched,
blind comparison. (For one thing the differences are not subtle at all
so that there is no need for blinding.) However, when Jenn said that
almost all CD players sounded different as a statement with some
applicability to others, then we would want to understand whether she
has taken the necessary steps to insure a fair comparison. Because those
differences are very subtle.

Just out of curiosity, for those (like Jenn, e.g.) who feel that vinyl
is more lifelike, does it matter whether the vinyl version was based on
a digital recording? Like "Nightfly" for instance? Does a digitally
recorded vinyl LP still sound better than the CD version?


Usually, in my experience. An example would be the 3 LPs recorded by my
mentor, Frederick Fennell, for Telarc. The first one was the first
symphonic digital recording made in the U.S. and I was present at the
sessions. The LP is, in my view, clearly superior to the CD.


The data recorded in the CD is a direct, clean, reproduction of the
digital recording. The vinyl version goes through many steps where
substantial errors and inaccuracies were added.

An
interesting note (and again, I admit that I know little about the
technology), is that the LP lists its sampling rate as 50,000 samples
per second.


CD has a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz. Assuming your information is
correct, a sampling rate conversion is performed to produce the CD. It
is straightforward to perform a sampling rate conversion with no changes
in attributes like tonal balance, etc., that people notice in LP vs CD
comparisons.


If so,
wouldn't that point to euphonic distortion being an important reason for
the perceived "life-likeness"? And that digital audio is not responsible
for any lack of "life-likeness"?


Perhaps, perhaps not. The CD technology could be messing things up, for
example.


Of course there is no technology that cannot be messed up by someone
unskilful, or intentionally messed up. But to claim the CD technology is
messing things up, you need to show that there are no excellent CD
recordings at all. And you will also be saying that the 50KHz sampling
technology employed by Telarc is great, but the 44.1 KHz technology is
somehow responsible for the inferior sound. Not a likely reason, because
there are also digital recordings based on CD sampling rates where you
prefer the vinyl versions.

The logical deduction is that the vinyl LP will be a lot less like the
digital recording than the CD is, because of the many steps known to
introduce errors involved in making the vinyl version. So if the LP and
CD sounds substantially different, you have a good bet on which one is
closer to the original digital recording.
  #363   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


On 11 Jul 2005 00:53:12 GMT, Jenn wrote:

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung

wrote:

I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came out, and
it
was
a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC, and my
friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could not get
over
the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD right
then,
and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or the vinyl
LP
version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind.

That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is less of an
issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree?

Interesting that you respond only to Chung's note, rather than the
anecdote he's responding to.

Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously thought the digital chain sounded more
like the *band playing live at the same time* than the Studer.

1. Does this band really record while all playing at the same time?
If so, they are the exception to common practice.

WHo says all the band were listening? I presume it was just Nichols and
Fagan. Remember, they were listening for which chain sounded more like a
band playing live..

But if the band never played the recording live in the studio....

They did however play the songs *many* times on tour, so one must
suppose that they knew what sounded most like a live performance.


Please believe that this isn't intended as a "flame", but I must say
that this part of the discussion has taken a tract that I find simply
astonishing! People on your "side" of this issue often speak of the
need to carefully adjust for output volume, test blindly, etc. in order
to get a valid listening test. I understand this desire. But then you
are using, as a point of debate here about Nichols, Fagan, et al
preferring the digital sound for the recording under discussion, a
recording for which the "original sound" never existed (i.e. the
musicians never played all together in the studio)!


You know this with such certainlyu *how*?

Meaning, you know this for sure, in direct contradiction to what Nichols,
who was there, recounts...how?

This presumption that he simply *could not* have had a band play a song live
in the studio -- just because Steely Dan, like many acts since the 70's,
tended not to release 'live in the studio' recordings -- is absurd.
SD could and did have a band's worth of
musicians on hand; doubtless they could have them rehearse,
set down guide versions, warm up together...or play on request so
Nichols could compare his two rigs. No reason to believe Fagan
did things differently as a solo act.



What Jenn appeared to miss is that the SD/Nichols experience was *NOT* a
listening test to rigorously determine if there were any sonic
differences between one source and another.



1.It was Donald Fagen not Steely Dan. Not a trivial difference.
2. I'm not buying these claims on Nichol's intent for these tests. It
was new technology and I *suspect* he was trying to be rigorous and he
was trying to determine the differences of each medium compared to a
live feed. While Nichols is a very respected engineer and I have no
doubt he does care about sound quality, judging by his work, I don't
think realism is one of his priorities. I think this has added to the
confusion. It seems he was considering that aspect of the recorders in
his comparison.



It is simply an account, by
Nichols, of what SD/Nichols felt at the time they were trying to
evaluate the sound quality of the digital recorder. No one on "our side"
has said that it was a proof of the superiority of digital. It is simply
an anecdote to support the fact that there are widely respected audio
pros who prefer digital recording, even back in the early '80's when the
equipment was still crude compared to today's.




I don't see anyone taking issue with that point. I think the confusion
is that Nichols' test of the recorders was apparently done with a live
group of musicians hut the album was a multitracked, overdubbed
processed recording. I think the point that will clarify everything is
simple. Nichols' test obviously was not done with the final product,
the recording of The Nightfly.




SD/Nichols certainly had the ability to compare live sounds vs recorded
sound. They could simply record individual tracks (like a drum solo for
instance) and compare live vs. recorded versions.



I think the anecdote speaks fairly clearly as to what they actually
did. Again, I think the confusion came in with the discussion of the
sound quality of the final product which was not the result of a live
band playing together in studio.




If we had used this anecdote as scientific proof that the digital audio
recorder is better than the analog tape recorder, then Jenn would have a
strong position to question whether level matching was done.



I think it is a fair and reasonable question regardles of any claims
"you" had made about the meaning and significance of the anecdote.




Which
Nichols could easily have done, btw.




Hence she asked a question rather than make a presumption of fact.





Similarly, when we heard Jenn's account of how vinyl was more life-like
to her compared to CD, we did not ask whether she did a level-matched,
blind comparison.



Now that would not have been a fair or reasonable question since her
claim was not in regards to a specific single recording.




(For one thing the differences are not subtle at all
so that there is no need for blinding.)




Are you suggesting that significant differences erase any effects of
bias? I think the research suggests otherwise.




However, when Jenn said that
almost all CD players sounded different as a statement with some
applicability to others, then we would want to understand whether she
has taken the necessary steps to insure a fair comparison. Because those
differences are very subtle.




But you are comfortable with unfair preference comparisons so long as
you pesonally are confident that an audible difference exists?





Just out of curiosity, for those (like Jenn, e.g.) who feel that vinyl
is more lifelike, does it matter whether the vinyl version was based on
a digital recording? Like "Nightfly" for instance?




My preferences are not predetermined by the nature of the source. There
are digitally recorded albums like The Nightfly where my favorite
version is on vinyl and there are albums like Aja which was an analog
recording where my favorite version is on CD. For m the choice is
*always* determined by direct comparisons. I don't rely on my
presumptions and I am often surprised by the results. My claim for a
general preference for vinyl is based on the numbers. In my comparisons
it is a vinyl version that is prefered most of the time. And the very
best of the very best I have in my collections are from LPs. That is
the basis of my claims of overall preference.



Does a digitally
recorded vinyl LP still sound better than the CD version?




Often, not always.



If so,
wouldn't that point to euphonic distortion being an important reason for
the perceived "life-likeness"?




It might. There are other reasonable explinations. I'm not too worried
about that since it would be hard to really find out. I would rather
have the folks making CDs and LPs worry about that.




And that digital audio is not responsible
for any lack of "life-likeness"?




Again, that's for the pros to figure out. I'm just interested in the
end results.






Scott Wheeler
  #364   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 15 Jul 2005 20:10:41 GMT, Jenn wrote:

But again, there are many presumptions there. "A band's worth of
musicians on hand"? "Rehearse"? "Warm up"? All I am saying is that you
folks argue in favor of matched level listening down to a couple of dB,
etc to make legit listening comparisons, then you also argue about the
listening comparison of a recording of an event that probably never
actually took place live! It seems like a contradiction to me.


That's because you're missing the point. The comparison is not between
two pieces of equipment, but among the opinions of professional
musicians. Some of those claim that vinyl is more 'lifelike', others
claim that to be true of CD. Neither opinion has scientific rigour, so
they have equal (lack of) value.

Basically, one regular poster always trots out Boyk as a supporter of
vinyl, so trotting out Fagen is simply a counterbalance. Similarly,
your opinion in this regard has no more value than that of any of the
others previously quoted, or of any experienced audiophile.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #365   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 15 Jul 2005 20:10:41 GMT, Jenn wrote:

But again, there are many presumptions there. "A band's worth of
musicians on hand"? "Rehearse"? "Warm up"? All I am saying is that you
folks argue in favor of matched level listening down to a couple of dB,
etc to make legit listening comparisons, then you also argue about the
listening comparison of a recording of an event that probably never
actually took place live! It seems like a contradiction to me.


That's because you're missing the point. The comparison is not between
two pieces of equipment, but among the opinions of professional
musicians. Some of those claim that vinyl is more 'lifelike', others
claim that to be true of CD. Neither opinion has scientific rigour, so
they have equal (lack of) value.


Perhaps I misunderstood the post, as I'm rather distracted away from
these matters at the moment. Wasn't the point that Fagen et al
preferred the CD sound because it sounded more like the session?

Basically, one regular poster always trots out Boyk as a supporter of
vinyl, so trotting out Fagen is simply a counterbalance. Similarly,
your opinion in this regard has no more value than that of any of the
others previously quoted, or of any experienced audiophile.


I never claimed that my opinion carried more weight, but rather that I
have a certain insight into the sound of live music because I hear live
music a great deal more than do most people.


  #366   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 11 Jul 2005 00:53:12 GMT, Jenn wrote:

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung

wrote:

I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came
out,
and
it
was
a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC,
and my
friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could
not
get
over
the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD
right
then,
and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or
the
vinyl
LP
version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind.

That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is
less
of an
issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree?

Interesting that you respond only to Chung's note, rather than
the
anecdote he's responding to.

Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously thought the digital chain
sounded
more
like the *band playing live at the same time* than the Studer.

1. Does this band really record while all playing at the same
time?
If so, they are the exception to common practice.

WHo says all the band were listening? I presume it was just
Nichols
and
Fagan. Remember, they were listening for which chain sounded more
like a
band playing live..

But if the band never played the recording live in the studio....

They did however play the songs *many* times on tour, so one must
suppose that they knew what sounded most like a live performance.

Please believe that this isn't intended as a "flame", but I must say
that this part of the discussion has taken a tract that I find simply
astonishing! People on your "side" of this issue often speak of the
need to carefully adjust for output volume, test blindly, etc. in order
to get a valid listening test. I understand this desire. But then you
are using, as a point of debate here about Nichols, Fagan, et al
preferring the digital sound for the recording under discussion, a
recording for which the "original sound" never existed (i.e. the
musicians never played all together in the studio)!

You know this with such certainlyu *how*?

Meaning, you know this for sure, in direct contradiction to what
Nichols,
who was there, recounts...how?

This presumption that he simply *could not* have had a band play a song
live
in the studio -- just because Steely Dan, like many acts since the 70's,
tended not to release 'live in the studio' recordings -- is absurd.
SD could and did have a band's worth of
musicians on hand; doubtless they could have them rehearse,
set down guide versions, warm up together...or play on request so
Nichols could compare his two rigs. No reason to believe Fagan
did things differently as a solo act.



What Jenn appeared to miss is that the SD/Nichols experience was *NOT* a
listening test to rigorously determine if there were any sonic
differences between one source and another. It is simply an account, by
Nichols, of what SD/Nichols felt at the time they were trying to
evaluate the sound quality of the digital recorder. No one on "our side"
has said that it was a proof of the superiority of digital. It is simply
an anecdote to support the fact that there are widely respected audio
pros who prefer digital recording, even back in the early '80's when the
equipment was still crude compared to today's.

SD/Nichols certainly had the ability to compare live sounds vs recorded
sound. They could simply record individual tracks (like a drum solo for
instance) and compare live vs. recorded versions.

If we had used this anecdote as scientific proof that the digital audio
recorder is better than the analog tape recorder, then Jenn would have a
strong position to question whether level matching was done. Which
Nichols could easily have done, btw.


It was my understanding that a poster was using Nichols et al statements
as showing that they believed that digital was superior to analogue
based on the recording in question: "Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously
thought the digital chain sounded more like the *band playing live at
the same time* than the Studer." I simply point out that this condition
never actually happened, i.e. the band didn't play all at the same time
in the session, most likely.


I thought you were explicitly asking about the need for controls, and
being "astonished" that "our side" has brought up a "listening test"
with no controls in place as "a point of debate"?


I was making a point that the opinion of some pros who favor the sound
of CD was used to show that some pros like CD, when it is almost
certainly true that no comparison to live music at the session is
possible in that case.

And how do you know that the band (or some members of the band) could
not have been playing at the same time, so that Nichols/Fagen could do a
comparison between the recorders and the live performance?


Based on how pop recordings are made, I would find it very, very unusual
if the band was playing live, as a total group, instrumentals and vocals.

If what another poster has since written,
that the session was only recorded in analogue, and what we are really
discussing is a remastering of the analogue recording (sorry, I'm not
familiar with the recording, the session, or the work of the band beyond
what I've heard on the radio), then my point is even stronger, as we are
relying on the distant memory of Nichols et al of what the session
sounded like; a session where, again, the musicians probably never
played together in the first place.


Again, this is not a rigorous listening test to tell subtle differences
apart.


And I understand that. All I'm saying is that based on how those
recordings are commonly made, a stated preference would carry little
wight in this case, if the standard is the sound of live music.

And of course, the band or some members of the band can surely
provide a reference.

Contrast that to your claim that vinyl is more likelike than CD.


I think that this is OFTEN the case, yes....

In the
majority of those comparisons you were not present in the recording
sessions, and did not even have memory to base your comparisons on.


Like anyone making comparisons in any subject, when, in my opinion, the
sound of one medium is time after time, more lifelike, one can make a
generalization, just as you do with your opinion on the sound of CDs.


Similarly, when we heard Jenn's account of how vinyl was more life-like
to her compared to CD, we did not ask whether she did a level-matched,
blind comparison. (For one thing the differences are not subtle at all
so that there is no need for blinding.) However, when Jenn said that
almost all CD players sounded different as a statement with some
applicability to others, then we would want to understand whether she
has taken the necessary steps to insure a fair comparison. Because those
differences are very subtle.

Just out of curiosity, for those (like Jenn, e.g.) who feel that vinyl
is more lifelike, does it matter whether the vinyl version was based on
a digital recording? Like "Nightfly" for instance? Does a digitally
recorded vinyl LP still sound better than the CD version?


Usually, in my experience. An example would be the 3 LPs recorded by my
mentor, Frederick Fennell, for Telarc. The first one was the first
symphonic digital recording made in the U.S. and I was present at the
sessions. The LP is, in my view, clearly superior to the CD.


The data recorded in the CD is a direct, clean, reproduction of the
digital recording. The vinyl version goes through many steps where
substantial errors and inaccuracies were added.

An
interesting note (and again, I admit that I know little about the
technology), is that the LP lists its sampling rate as 50,000 samples
per second.


CD has a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz.


Yes, of course. Even **I** know that! :-)

Assuming your information is
correct,


It is what is stated on the record jacket, and what Tom Stockham was
saying at the sessions.

a sampling rate conversion is performed to produce the CD. It
is straightforward to perform a sampling rate conversion with no changes
in attributes like tonal balance, etc., that people notice in LP vs CD
comparisons.


OK. I found it interesting that the sampling rate was higher on the LP
than it is on CD. I wonder if that was common with the early digital
LPs.


If so,
wouldn't that point to euphonic distortion being an important reason for
the perceived "life-likeness"? And that digital audio is not responsible
for any lack of "life-likeness"?


Perhaps, perhaps not. The CD technology could be messing things up, for
example.


Of course there is no technology that cannot be messed up by someone
unskilful, or intentionally messed up. But to claim the CD technology is
messing things up, you need to show that there are no excellent CD
recordings at all. And you will also be saying that the 50KHz sampling
technology employed by Telarc is great, but the 44.1 KHz technology is
somehow responsible for the inferior sound. Not a likely reason, because
there are also digital recordings based on CD sampling rates where you
prefer the vinyl versions.

The logical deduction is that the vinyl LP will be a lot less like the
digital recording than the CD is, because of the many steps known to
introduce errors involved in making the vinyl version. So if the LP and
CD sounds substantially different, you have a good bet on which one is
closer to the original digital recording.


All good points. And, I will restate my original point, made now months
ago: I really don't care why LPs generally sound better to me; all that
I know is, they do. If it is because of some type of distortion, that's
OK by me. My only goal is to transport what I hear live into my
listening room, to the extent that it's possible.
  #367   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:


Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 11 Jul 2005 00:53:12 GMT, Jenn wrote:

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung

wrote:

I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came
out,
and
it
was
a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC,
and
my
friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could
not
get
over
the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD
right
then,
and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or
the
vinyl
LP
version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind.

That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is
less of
an
issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree?

Interesting that you respond only to Chung's note, rather than
the
anecdote he's responding to.

Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously thought the digital chain
sounded
more
like the *band playing live at the same time* than the Studer.

1. Does this band really record while all playing at the same
time?
If so, they are the exception to common practice.

WHo says all the band were listening? I presume it was just
Nichols
and
Fagan. Remember, they were listening for which chain sounded more
like a
band playing live..

But if the band never played the recording live in the studio....

They did however play the songs *many* times on tour, so one must
suppose that they knew what sounded most like a live performance.

Please believe that this isn't intended as a "flame", but I must say
that this part of the discussion has taken a tract that I find simply
astonishing! People on your "side" of this issue often speak of the
need to carefully adjust for output volume, test blindly, etc. in order
to get a valid listening test. I understand this desire. But then you
are using, as a point of debate here about Nichols, Fagan, et al
preferring the digital sound for the recording under discussion, a
recording for which the "original sound" never existed (i.e. the
musicians never played all together in the studio)!

You know this with such certainlyu *how*?

Meaning, you know this for sure, in direct contradiction to what Nichols,
who was there, recounts...how?


The presumption is that they didn't make the recording with all players
and singers performing at once because that is the way it is/was usually
done. Did Nichols say otherwise?



Meaning, you *don't* know. Thanks.


I also *don't* know that the sun will raise tomorrow, but based on
previous experience, I'm willing to bet that it will.


Now I have a question: Has Nichols said that a band's worth of performers
was never gathered in a studio when SD recorded? Because I have read
otherwise.

Besides, do you *seriously* imagine* that if Roger Nichols and Donald Fagan
wanted a band to play in the studio , for the purpose of
comparing that sound to the sound of the Studer and the new digital recorder,
they couldn't arrange for that to occur?


Of course they could. What's the point? If they were comparing the
sound of the studio to the sound of the tape and the recorder, ALL I'm
saying is that the chances of such a comparison to the sound of the band
playing and singing in that room live are pretty slim, as it probably
never happened in the first place!


This presumption that he simply *could not* have had a band play a song
live
in the studio -- just because Steely Dan, like many acts since the 70's,
tended not to release 'live in the studio' recordings -- is absurd.
SD could and did have a band's worth of
musicians on hand; doubtless they could have them rehearse,
set down guide versions, warm up together...or play on request so
Nichols could compare his two rigs. No reason to believe Fagan
did things differently as a solo act.


But again, there are many presumptions there. "A band's worth of
musicians on hand"? "Rehearse"? "Warm up"?


The idea that these are outrageously unlikely occurences, when a SD/Fagan
album was being recorded circa 1983, is the far more absurd presumption here.


No it isn't based on how pop records are made. Perhaps these people
record differently that the vast majority of the rest of the industry.

All I am saying is that you
folks argue in favor of matched level listening down to a couple of dB,
etc to make legit listening comparisons, then you also argue about the
listening comparison of a recording of an event that probably never
actually took place live! It seems like a contradiction to me.


There is no contradiction, there is only a fantastic presumption on
your part, which you seem to stick to merely to prop up your prejudice.


That THAT speaks directly to my point! Again, perhaps I am wrong and I
missed something in the previous posts on this, but what I gathered was
that a poster makes a point of stating that Fagan et al like the sound
of CD based on those sessions in question, when there probably WAS no
original event to compare the live sound to the recording. I found this
an interesting contrast when you are so careful to match levels aon so
forth very carefully when doing component listening tests, given that
the differences are so very VERY great between those two standards, I
think that this shows YOUR prejudice!

Your presumption of what is 'probable' is contradicted *directly*
by the testimony of the recording engineer himself,


If the engineer said that the whole band played and sung on the session,
I'm sorry; I didn't catch that, and in Saturday Night Live fashion I
will say..."Never mind!" :-)

as well as by
common studio practice. The final recording is never the entire
picture of a series of recording sessions. An obsessively overdubbed
final product is not sufficient logical grounds to assert that musicians
'probably never' played together in the studio during the sessions....



Again, I'm going by common practice in pop music. It's a logical
deduction for that reason.

or that they 'probably never' were even *there* all at the same time.


I don't believe that I said that.

So if Roger Nichols claims he had a
band play in the studio -- particularly in the course of recounting an
equipment comparison trial -- there's no
sensible reason to assert that he 'probably' didn't. His comparison
method *is* certainly open to rational critique, but you've
picked the weakest, most irrational of legs to stand on.

  #368   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 11 Jul 2005 00:53:12 GMT, Jenn wrote:

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung

wrote:

I bought Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" CD when it first came
out,
and
it
was
a startlingly clear recording. That was back in 1983 IIRC,
and my
friends who had not listened to CD's before simply could
not
get
over
the cleanliness of the sound. Some of them converted to CD
right
then,
and never looked back. The question of whether the CD or
the
vinyl
LP
version sounded more "life-like" was not on anyone's mind.

That's too bad. Of course, in pop music, "life-like" is
less
of an
issue than in acoustic music, don't you agree?

Interesting that you respond only to Chung's note, rather than
the
anecdote he's responding to.

Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously thought the digital chain
sounded
more
like the *band playing live at the same time* than the Studer.

1. Does this band really record while all playing at the same
time?
If so, they are the exception to common practice.

WHo says all the band were listening? I presume it was just
Nichols
and
Fagan. Remember, they were listening for which chain sounded more
like a
band playing live..

But if the band never played the recording live in the studio....

They did however play the songs *many* times on tour, so one must
suppose that they knew what sounded most like a live performance.

Please believe that this isn't intended as a "flame", but I must say
that this part of the discussion has taken a tract that I find simply
astonishing! People on your "side" of this issue often speak of the
need to carefully adjust for output volume, test blindly, etc. in order
to get a valid listening test. I understand this desire. But then you
are using, as a point of debate here about Nichols, Fagan, et al
preferring the digital sound for the recording under discussion, a
recording for which the "original sound" never existed (i.e. the
musicians never played all together in the studio)!

You know this with such certainlyu *how*?

Meaning, you know this for sure, in direct contradiction to what
Nichols,
who was there, recounts...how?

This presumption that he simply *could not* have had a band play a song
live
in the studio -- just because Steely Dan, like many acts since the 70's,
tended not to release 'live in the studio' recordings -- is absurd.
SD could and did have a band's worth of
musicians on hand; doubtless they could have them rehearse,
set down guide versions, warm up together...or play on request so
Nichols could compare his two rigs. No reason to believe Fagan
did things differently as a solo act.



What Jenn appeared to miss is that the SD/Nichols experience was *NOT* a
listening test to rigorously determine if there were any sonic
differences between one source and another. It is simply an account, by
Nichols, of what SD/Nichols felt at the time they were trying to
evaluate the sound quality of the digital recorder. No one on "our side"
has said that it was a proof of the superiority of digital. It is simply
an anecdote to support the fact that there are widely respected audio
pros who prefer digital recording, even back in the early '80's when the
equipment was still crude compared to today's.

SD/Nichols certainly had the ability to compare live sounds vs recorded
sound. They could simply record individual tracks (like a drum solo for
instance) and compare live vs. recorded versions.

If we had used this anecdote as scientific proof that the digital audio
recorder is better than the analog tape recorder, then Jenn would have a
strong position to question whether level matching was done. Which
Nichols could easily have done, btw.

It was my understanding that a poster was using Nichols et al statements
as showing that they believed that digital was superior to analogue
based on the recording in question: "Mssrs. Nichols et al. obviously
thought the digital chain sounded more like the *band playing live at
the same time* than the Studer." I simply point out that this condition
never actually happened, i.e. the band didn't play all at the same time
in the session, most likely.


I thought you were explicitly asking about the need for controls, and
being "astonished" that "our side" has brought up a "listening test"
with no controls in place as "a point of debate"?


I was making a point that the opinion of some pros who favor the sound
of CD was used to show that some pros like CD, when it is almost
certainly true that no comparison to live music at the session is
possible in that case.


Perhaps you should read Nichols' account more carefully. He was *NOT*
comparing the sound of the CD vs live. He was comparing the live sound
of the band vs what the two recorders' outputs sounded like.

Based on that, the rest of what you wrote regarding the comparison is
snipped...


Similarly, when we heard Jenn's account of how vinyl was more life-like
to her compared to CD, we did not ask whether she did a level-matched,
blind comparison. (For one thing the differences are not subtle at all
so that there is no need for blinding.) However, when Jenn said that
almost all CD players sounded different as a statement with some
applicability to others, then we would want to understand whether she
has taken the necessary steps to insure a fair comparison. Because those
differences are very subtle.

Just out of curiosity, for those (like Jenn, e.g.) who feel that vinyl
is more lifelike, does it matter whether the vinyl version was based on
a digital recording? Like "Nightfly" for instance? Does a digitally
recorded vinyl LP still sound better than the CD version?

Usually, in my experience. An example would be the 3 LPs recorded by my
mentor, Frederick Fennell, for Telarc. The first one was the first
symphonic digital recording made in the U.S. and I was present at the
sessions. The LP is, in my view, clearly superior to the CD.


The data recorded in the CD is a direct, clean, reproduction of the
digital recording. The vinyl version goes through many steps where
substantial errors and inaccuracies were added.

An
interesting note (and again, I admit that I know little about the
technology), is that the LP lists its sampling rate as 50,000 samples
per second.


CD has a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz.


Yes, of course. Even **I** know that! :-)

Assuming your information is
correct,


It is what is stated on the record jacket, and what Tom Stockham was
saying at the sessions.

a sampling rate conversion is performed to produce the CD. It
is straightforward to perform a sampling rate conversion with no changes
in attributes like tonal balance, etc., that people notice in LP vs CD
comparisons.


OK. I found it interesting that the sampling rate was higher on the LP
than it is on CD.


There is *NO* sampling rate on the LP. LP is analog.

I wonder if that was common with the early digital
LPs.


Some early digital recordings were based on 44.1 KHz sampling rates.



If so,
wouldn't that point to euphonic distortion being an important reason for
the perceived "life-likeness"? And that digital audio is not responsible
for any lack of "life-likeness"?

Perhaps, perhaps not. The CD technology could be messing things up, for
example.


Of course there is no technology that cannot be messed up by someone
unskilful, or intentionally messed up. But to claim the CD technology is
messing things up, you need to show that there are no excellent CD
recordings at all. And you will also be saying that the 50KHz sampling
technology employed by Telarc is great, but the 44.1 KHz technology is
somehow responsible for the inferior sound. Not a likely reason, because
there are also digital recordings based on CD sampling rates where you
prefer the vinyl versions.

The logical deduction is that the vinyl LP will be a lot less like the
digital recording than the CD is, because of the many steps known to
introduce errors involved in making the vinyl version. So if the LP and
CD sounds substantially different, you have a good bet on which one is
closer to the original digital recording.


All good points. And, I will restate my original point, made now months
ago: I really don't care why LPs generally sound better to me; all that
I know is, they do. If it is because of some type of distortion, that's
OK by me. My only goal is to transport what I hear live into my
listening room, to the extent that it's possible.


I understand that you do not care why you have that preference. Others,
however, don't think it is due to euphonic distortion.
  #369   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Helen Schmidt wrote:

... the "objectivists" here are extremely naive,
philosophically...


But to give credit where credit is due, Chung's argument about Karajan
and Jenn back on the "Newbie CD vs Vinyl" thread is a classic use of
the Skeptic's procedure of opposition (as outlined by Sextus Empiricus
in the 2nd century A.D.), which seems to me to be pretty cool.

Mark
  #370   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 19 Jul 2005 00:44:29 GMT, Jenn wrote:

In article , Chung
wrote:


An
interesting note (and again, I admit that I know little about the
technology), is that the LP lists its sampling rate as 50,000 samples
per second.


CD has a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz.


Yes, of course. Even **I** know that! :-)

Assuming your information is
correct,


It is what is stated on the record jacket, and what Tom Stockham was
saying at the sessions.

a sampling rate conversion is performed to produce the CD. It
is straightforward to perform a sampling rate conversion with no changes
in attributes like tonal balance, etc., that people notice in LP vs CD
comparisons.


OK. I found it interesting that the sampling rate was higher on the LP
than it is on CD. I wonder if that was common with the early digital
LPs.


Yes, as they mostly used the Soundstream system, which had a 50k
sampling rate. The 44.1k rate of CD was chosen because it fits neatly
with the line rate of a video recorder, and early PCM audio recorders
were converted video recorders.

Very few have suggested that this rate difference is audible in
practice, particularly given all the other degradations inherent to
the LP process.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #371   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"chung" wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:


snip



OK. I found it interesting that the sampling rate was higher on the LP
than it is on CD.


There is *NO* sampling rate on the LP. LP is analog.


I am pretty sure she meant that the recording was done at 50khz and decoded
at that rate for production of the LP master disk.


I wonder if that was common with the early digital LPs.


Some early digital recordings were based on 44.1 KHz sampling rates.



Soundstream was always 50khz from the time it went commercial, I believe.
Sony used 44.1.


snip


  #372   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 19 Jul 2005 00:44:29 GMT, Jenn wrote:

In article , Chung
wrote:


An
interesting note (and again, I admit that I know little about the
technology), is that the LP lists its sampling rate as 50,000 samples
per second.

CD has a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz.


Yes, of course. Even **I** know that! :-)

Assuming your information is
correct,


It is what is stated on the record jacket, and what Tom Stockham was
saying at the sessions.

a sampling rate conversion is performed to produce the CD. It
is straightforward to perform a sampling rate conversion with no changes
in attributes like tonal balance, etc., that people notice in LP vs CD
comparisons.


OK. I found it interesting that the sampling rate was higher on the LP
than it is on CD. I wonder if that was common with the early digital
LPs.


Yes, as they mostly used the Soundstream system, which had a 50k
sampling rate. The 44.1k rate of CD was chosen because it fits neatly
with the line rate of a video recorder, and early PCM audio recorders
were converted video recorders.


Yes, I recall that now, thanks.


Very few have suggested that this rate difference is audible in
practice, particularly given all the other degradations inherent to
the LP process.


Later digital LPs sure didn't sound as good, IMV, as the early Telarcs.
  #373   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
chung wrote:

Perhaps you should read Nichols' account more carefully. He was *NOT*
comparing the sound of the CD vs live. He was comparing the live sound
of the band vs what the two recorders' outputs sounded like.


Does anyone have a link to the original account? Again, I'm not trying
to make a big deal out of this seemingly trivial story; I'm only saying
that it is ironic in several ways, if, as I suspect, the band didn't
play all together in the studio.


Based on that, the rest of what you wrote regarding the comparison is
snipped...


Similarly, when we heard Jenn's account of how vinyl was more life-like
to her compared to CD, we did not ask whether she did a level-matched,
blind comparison. (For one thing the differences are not subtle at all
so that there is no need for blinding.) However, when Jenn said that
almost all CD players sounded different as a statement with some
applicability to others, then we would want to understand whether she
has taken the necessary steps to insure a fair comparison. Because
those
differences are very subtle.

Just out of curiosity, for those (like Jenn, e.g.) who feel that vinyl
is more lifelike, does it matter whether the vinyl version was based on
a digital recording? Like "Nightfly" for instance? Does a digitally
recorded vinyl LP still sound better than the CD version?

Usually, in my experience. An example would be the 3 LPs recorded by my
mentor, Frederick Fennell, for Telarc. The first one was the first
symphonic digital recording made in the U.S. and I was present at the
sessions. The LP is, in my view, clearly superior to the CD.

The data recorded in the CD is a direct, clean, reproduction of the
digital recording. The vinyl version goes through many steps where
substantial errors and inaccuracies were added.

An
interesting note (and again, I admit that I know little about the
technology), is that the LP lists its sampling rate as 50,000 samples
per second.

CD has a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz.


Yes, of course. Even **I** know that! :-)

Assuming your information is
correct,


It is what is stated on the record jacket, and what Tom Stockham was
saying at the sessions.

a sampling rate conversion is performed to produce the CD. It
is straightforward to perform a sampling rate conversion with no changes
in attributes like tonal balance, etc., that people notice in LP vs CD
comparisons.


OK. I found it interesting that the sampling rate was higher on the LP
than it is on CD.


There is *NO* sampling rate on the LP. LP is analog.


But the recording process is digital, hence there IS a sampling rate.


I wonder if that was common with the early digital
LPs.


Some early digital recordings were based on 44.1 KHz sampling rates.



If so,
wouldn't that point to euphonic distortion being an important reason
for
the perceived "life-likeness"? And that digital audio is not
responsible
for any lack of "life-likeness"?

Perhaps, perhaps not. The CD technology could be messing things up, for
example.

Of course there is no technology that cannot be messed up by someone
unskilful, or intentionally messed up. But to claim the CD technology is
messing things up, you need to show that there are no excellent CD
recordings at all. And you will also be saying that the 50KHz sampling
technology employed by Telarc is great, but the 44.1 KHz technology is
somehow responsible for the inferior sound. Not a likely reason, because
there are also digital recordings based on CD sampling rates where you
prefer the vinyl versions.

The logical deduction is that the vinyl LP will be a lot less like the
digital recording than the CD is, because of the many steps known to
introduce errors involved in making the vinyl version. So if the LP and
CD sounds substantially different, you have a good bet on which one is
closer to the original digital recording.


All good points. And, I will restate my original point, made now months
ago: I really don't care why LPs generally sound better to me; all that
I know is, they do. If it is because of some type of distortion, that's
OK by me. My only goal is to transport what I hear live into my
listening room, to the extent that it's possible.


I understand that you do not care why you have that preference. Others,
however, don't think it is due to euphonic distortion.


Understood. If the "euphonic distortions" sound like music, it's fine
by me. If the "perfect sound forever" doesn't sound like music, I don't
see the point.
  #374   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:44:01 -0500, chung wrote:

Jenn wrote:


OK. I found it interesting that the sampling rate was higher on the LP
than it is on CD.


There is *NO* sampling rate on the LP. LP is analog.


She's referring to LPs such as Bop 'til You Drop, on which the
original recording was digital.

I wonder if that was common with the early digital
LPs.


Some early digital recordings were based on 44.1 KHz sampling rates.


Very few - they mostly used the SoundStream system, which was 50k.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #375   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:44:01 -0500, chung wrote:

Jenn wrote:


OK. I found it interesting that the sampling rate was higher on the LP
than it is on CD.


There is *NO* sampling rate on the LP. LP is analog.


She's referring to LPs such as Bop 'til You Drop, on which the
original recording was digital.

I wonder if that was common with the early digital
LPs.


Some early digital recordings were based on 44.1 KHz sampling rates.


Very few - they mostly used the SoundStream system, which was 50k.


Hmmm, I thought the Sony PCM-1630, a 44.1KHz sampling ADC, was very
commonly used, starting sometime in the '80's, although I am not sure
exactly when that was introduced.


  #376   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
chung wrote:


Perhaps you should read Nichols' account more carefully. He was *NOT*
comparing the sound of the CD vs live. He was comparing the live sound
of the band vs what the two recorders' outputs sounded like.


Does anyone have a link to the original account? Again, I'm not trying
to make a big deal out of this seemingly trivial story; I'm only saying
that it is ironic in several ways, if, as I suspect, the band didn't
play all together in the studio.


I provided a link the the original when I posted the account here, and again a day or two
ago. Btw, your suspicion is *directly* contradicted by what Nichols wrote. *I* suspect you
are confusing final product -- a record that contains overdubs etc -- with *sessions* , for
which there is no reason to believe there *could not* have been musicians playing together.
Not to mention that for a 'session' whose *purpose* was to compare two pieces of recording
gear, rather than to rehearse or record for the album, it is ludicrous to 'suspect' that Roger
Nichols and Donald Fagan couldn't have set up a live-feed-vs.-recording.

Here is the link *again* (third time I've posted now). Might I ask that you desist from
'speculating' further until you've read Nichols' account?


http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2001_08.html



--

-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'
  #377   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
chung wrote:


Perhaps you should read Nichols' account more carefully. He was *NOT*
comparing the sound of the CD vs live. He was comparing the live sound
of the band vs what the two recorders' outputs sounded like.


Does anyone have a link to the original account? Again, I'm not trying
to make a big deal out of this seemingly trivial story; I'm only saying
that it is ironic in several ways, if, as I suspect, the band didn't
play all together in the studio.


I provided a link the the original when I posted the account here, and again
a day or two
ago. Btw, your suspicion is *directly* contradicted by what Nichols wrote.
*I* suspect you
are confusing final product -- a record that contains overdubs etc -- with
*sessions* , for
which there is no reason to believe there *could not* have been musicians
playing together.
Not to mention that for a 'session' whose *purpose* was to compare two pieces
of recording
gear,


That's the part that I missed.

rather than to rehearse or record for the album, it is ludicrous to
'suspect' that Roger
Nichols and Donald Fagan couldn't have set up a live-feed-vs.-recording.

Here is the link *again* (third time I've posted now). Might I ask that you
desist from
'speculating' further until you've read Nichols' account?


Look, Steven, there's no need to be cranky. I missed the 2nd time you
evidently posted the link, and I guess that I misread the first time. I
admitted that Nichols obviously preferred digital in my last post. I
haven't been reading as carefully as I normally would for the past week
or so due to work pressures.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:58 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"