Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Can't the little guy compete with Abbey Road Studios?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"TonyP" wrote in message
u... Exactly, and it is obvious that digital recording is much more successful these days by any measure. The fifties are long passed. Actually, at least as of a few years ago, the percentage of households having a CD player has never caught up with the percentage having record players. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message ... "TonyP" wrote in message u... Exactly, and it is obvious that digital recording is much more successful these days by any measure. The fifties are long passed. Actually, at least as of a few years ago, the percentage of households having a CD player has never caught up with the percentage having record players. *QUITE* a few years ago methinks. In fact I would be willing to bet the number of households still *using* a turntable at all is miniscule these days. Please provide some evidence to support you theory. TonyP. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:34:08 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote: One does not HAVE to use autotune. One does, today, if one has a singer with inaccurate pitch. Even many singers who are very close to pitch want to get closer to perfection. One does *NOT*. You now have an OPTION that you didn't back then. Back then, you didn't GET to record until you'd had some success as a performer. You went in to the studio with something worth recording. If your intonation wasn't perfect, you had other qualities that compensated. Now every wanabee can record. Engineers can play at turd-polishing if they want, I suppose. it's a living ';-) CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
... Back then, you didn't GET to record until you'd had some success as a performer. And now you can debut at #1 without ever really having performed at all. I'm not sure that's what I call progress. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
TonyP wrote:
"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message ... "TonyP" wrote in message u... Exactly, and it is obvious that digital recording is much more successful these days by any measure. The fifties are long passed. Actually, at least as of a few years ago, the percentage of households having a CD player has never caught up with the percentage having record players. *QUITE* a few years ago methinks. In fact I would be willing to bet the number of households still *using* a turntable at all is miniscule these days. Please provide some evidence to support you theory. No, no, he is arguing that at their peak, there were more record players in homes than there were CD players at _their_ peak. Two values taken at different times. And I can believe that. More folks today listen to music in their cars and on walkmen than listen in their homes. This is shameful, I think. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message ... On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:34:08 +1000, "TonyP" wrote: One does not HAVE to use autotune. One does, today, if one has a singer with inaccurate pitch. Even many singers who are very close to pitch want to get closer to perfection. One does *NOT*. You now have an OPTION that you didn't back then. Back then, you didn't GET to record until you'd had some success as a performer. Not necessarily so. Go to a used LP store and check out the "folk" section, specifically material recorded during the "Folk Scare" that ran from 1958 (Kingston Trio has a smash hit with "Tom Dooley") through 1964 (the Beatles took over the charts). The big companies in the field (Vanguard, Elektra, Capitol, RCA Victor, Columbia, Warner Bros., Mercury, Tradition) had grabbed the big stars (Kingston Trio, Weavers, Limeliters, Joan Baez, Tom Paxton, Chad Mitchell Trio, Theo Bikel, Oscar Brand, Bob Dylan, PP&M, Carolyn Hester, Ian & Sylvia); the little companies rushed in to get a piece of the action. You find the results in the used bins; album after album recycling material from the stars, recorded by folks who the little labels pulled out of some college coffeehouse someplace and signed in the hope they might have the next Baez. It mostly didn't work, and most of the acts were truly dreadful. If Autotune had been around, it might've helped...a little. There were a few folks who got discovered that way and were genuinely good, but mostly they weren't. Same story in any field that gets popular (I picked the one I know best); you don't remember the bad acts because you probably never bought the records anyway, but go to the used stores, and the whole sad story lies in front of you. Peace, Paul |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote in message
news:hWiXc.94284$TI1.20710@attbi_s52... "Laurence Payne" wrote in message ... Back then, you didn't GET to record until you'd had some success as a performer. And now you can debut at #1 without ever really having performed at all. I'm not sure that's what I call progress. Two words: Blind Faith. The more things change... Peace, Paul |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... No, no, he is arguing that at their peak, there were more record players in homes than there were CD players at _their_ peak. Two values taken at different times. The statistic was actually at the same time from the Consumer Electronics Association but it was before computers started being counted as CD players. Record players were in well over 90% of homes during the 1970s. I know you can't say that for computers but I don't know about computers, DVD players and CD players combined. An awful lot of people I know had their first CD experience with a computer three or four years ago after years of LPs and cassettes. Most have never heard a CD on anything other than their computer's speakers. Abandoning LP lovers is one of the stupidist things the record stores ever did. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:27:25 GMT, "Ricky W. Hunt"
wrote: "Laurence Payne" wrote in message .. . Back then, you didn't GET to record until you'd had some success as a performer. And now you can debut at #1 without ever really having performed at all. I'm not sure that's what I call progress. Nowadays, DJs "perform". Al |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:30:34 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ): TonyP wrote: "Bob Olhsson" wrote in message ... "TonyP" wrote in message u... Exactly, and it is obvious that digital recording is much more successful these days by any measure. The fifties are long passed. Actually, at least as of a few years ago, the percentage of households having a CD player has never caught up with the percentage having record players. *QUITE* a few years ago methinks. In fact I would be willing to bet the number of households still *using* a turntable at all is miniscule these days. Please provide some evidence to support you theory. No, no, he is arguing that at their peak, there were more record players in homes than there were CD players at _their_ peak. Two values taken at different times. And I can believe that. More folks today listen to music in their cars and on walkmen than listen in their homes. This is shameful, I think. --scott Right. CDs at their peak!? Are you implying that CDs have passed their peak? Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote in message news:hWiXc.94284$TI1.20710@attbi_s52... "Laurence Payne" wrote in message ... Back then, you didn't GET to record until you'd had some success as a performer. And now you can debut at #1 without ever really having performed at all. I'm not sure that's what I call progress. I bet you wouldn't complain if YOU were the artist :-) TonyP. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... No, no, he is arguing that at their peak, there were more record players in homes than there were CD players at _their_ peak. Two values taken at different times. And I can believe that. I can't! More folks today listen to music in their cars and on walkmen than listen in their homes. This is shameful, I think. Most people had one turntable, and maybe a cassette deck. Now they have a CD player, DVD player which plays CD's, CD player in their car, CD player in their computer, CD player in their boom box, and maybe a CD walkman. TonyP. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 06:19:21 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article znr1093568752k@trad): In article writes: Right. CDs at their peak!? Are you implying that CDs have passed their peak? I don't have any data, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some study that shows that they have indeed passed their peak. The DVD player was the fastest selling consumer electronic product ever (from last year's CES), and it appears from informal observation, the success of iTunes, and threats of lawsuits for downloaders that MP3 files are the most popular music format these days. Guess it's a case of interpretation. I'm guessing there are more "CD Players" per household than there every were turntables. A DVD player that also plays CDs has to be considered a CD player as well as do CD drives in computers, provided they play music. Off hand, I'd say this was a case of the statistics being grossly mainpulated. Regards, Ty (I still own a nicely working turntable and 41.5 linear feet of vinyl) Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Most people had one turntable, and maybe a cassette deck. Now they have a CD player, DVD player which plays CD's, CD player in their car, CD player in their computer, CD player in their boom box, and maybe a CD walkman. TonyP. although this may getting off point, do you consider those cd players in the same sense that phonographs were considered? in my flat, i have a stereo that has a phonograph and a tuner. my stereo doesn't have a cd player. on the other hand, my computer has a cd drive, there's a boombox with a cd player, and a discman with headphones (i haven't upgraded the cassette player to a cd player in my car). so, this means that, for actual *listening*, i have a tuner and phonograph. i don't have a cd player for "real". but who does anymore? who sits and listens to an album? music is "consumed" in cars, in headphones, over computer speakers, etc.? cds are on their way out, anyway. mp3-type players make much much much more sense. i wonder how long it'll be before i'm uploading a band's mixes onto their ipod after the session . . . cheers, chris deckard saint louis mo |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
If you are prepared to accept astronomical levels of distortion. Otherwise
the REAL DNR measured at say 1% distortion was a LOT lower. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please do! TonyP. wait -- there's different kinds of distortion. just look at the transfer curves of a tube vs. a transistor. it's all right there in the graph. now, which you prefer is subjective (i record a lot of noise bands, so things can get quite subjective). an anecdote: i have a tascam ms16 1" 16 track. i always used the dbx NR because i feared the hiss. one day, a client and i A/B'd the NR and without. we turned the NR off the rest of the project. and i don't use the dbx at all these days. sure, there's hiss in the recordings, and i have to be on my toes with the channel mutes, but the difference in sound is there -- so much that i'm willing to sacrifice some 30dB in noise floor. to me, it's common sense: all the processing that happens within the dbxI process is going to affect the high end -- if we've learned anything from thermodynamics, it's that you can't get anything for free . cheers, chris deckard saint louis mo |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"TonyP" wrote in message
u... If you are prepared to accept astronomical levels of distortion. I'm prepared to accept subjectively acceptable levels of distortion. This can be 5-10% on peaks. The solid state gear gives up at 1% while the tube gear has another 10-15 dB. before reaching 5-10%. Have you ever done listening tests for distortion? -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
It won't matter soon anyhow - the DVD mechanism will be the one
manufactured, and if you want to play a CD, you will buy a DVD machine. Case in point: Last DVD machine purchased for PA work: $69.00 AUD, with THE LOT (VGA out, DTS, Dolby decoding onboard etc etc) Last CD machine purchased: Marantz CD-67SE, $900 AUD - it plays CDs. Granted, the CD machine was a premium machine, but why even buy a second hand CD player that is more expensive than a brand new DVD player? Best Regards, Anthony B. Kitson ABK Audio Engineering. PS - First time back here in a few years. A big hello to the familiar names from the past and the rec.audio chat sessions. Judging from the same ol crap being argued into the ground (of course I read the Bose shop thread up first!) nothings ever changed. "Mike Rivers" wrote in message I don't have any data, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some study that shows that they have indeed passed their peak. The DVD player was the fastest selling consumer electronic product ever (from last year's CES), and it appears from informal observation, the success of iTunes, and threats of lawsuits for downloaders that MP3 files are the most popular music format these days. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"mr c deckard" wrote in message om... i forgot a teac reel to reel (A-4010 -- the one with the horrible noise floor from the electronics). i'm transfering some old reels for a client, and after listening to a few, i've decided to make it part of my stereo. any cd i purchase, i'm going to transfer to tape. maybe i'm fooling myself into thinking it sounds better -- just allow me this one bliss of placebo . . . Of course you're fooling yourself, but as long as YOU'RE happy..................... (at least you already realise it) Here's a tip, transfer it back to CDR to save on tape costs and make playing SO much easier. TonyP. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1093604639k@trad... and no new store-bought CDs - they download all their music now, even if they copy some of their downloads on to CD blanks to play in one or more of those players. Yes, it really amuses me when they convert 128kbs MP3 back to CD. TonyP. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"mr c deckard" wrote in message om... an anecdote: i have a tascam ms16 1" 16 track. i always used the dbx NR because i feared the hiss. one day, a client and i A/B'd the NR and without. we turned the NR off the rest of the project. Exactly, you took the SNR hit because the "solution" was even worse. With digital you aren't caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. and i don't use the dbx at all these days. sure, there's hiss in the recordings, and i have to be on my toes with the channel mutes, but the difference in sound is there -- so much that i'm willing to sacrifice some 30dB in noise floor. to me, it's common sense: all the processing that happens within the dbxI process is going to affect the high end -- if we've learned anything from thermodynamics, it's that you can't get anything for free . Having used Dolby A, B, C, S, and SR at various times, I'm sure glad I don't have to anymore. TonyP. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message ... "TonyP" wrote in message u... If you are prepared to accept astronomical levels of distortion. I'm prepared to accept subjectively acceptable levels of distortion. This can be 5-10% on peaks. The solid state gear gives up at 1% while the tube gear has another 10-15 dB. before reaching 5-10%. But these figures are meaningless in isolation. Have you ever done listening tests for distortion? Of course, and more importantly measured it on thousands of occasions. TonyP. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
AnthonyBK wrote: It won't matter soon anyhow - the DVD mechanism will be the one manufactured, and if you want to play a CD, you will buy a DVD machine. Case in point: Last DVD machine purchased for PA work: $69.00 AUD, with THE LOT (VGA out, DTS, Dolby decoding onboard etc etc) Last CD machine purchased: Marantz CD-67SE, $900 AUD - it plays CDs. Granted, the CD machine was a premium machine, but why even buy a second hand CD player that is more expensive than a brand new DVD player? Because it won't start skipping in the middle of a live gig. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
TonyP wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1093604639k@trad... and no new store-bought CDs - they download all their music now, even if they copy some of their downloads on to CD blanks to play in one or more of those players. Yes, it really amuses me when they convert 128kbs MP3 back to CD. Well, the sound quality isn't any worse than listening to the 128kbps MP3s themselves, so if that sound quality is acceptable on the computer, I guess it's acceptable in the car or whatever as well. On the other hand, if you then rip the audio off that CD and encode it as MP3 again... - Logan |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1093872546k@trad... In article writes: It may not be *TECHNICAL* enough to satisfy you since you seem to be pretty narrow-minded about this, but how about this: Some studio clients with plenty of money to spend think that it sounds better and request it. To me, if I'm in business to make money with a studio, the fact that I can get paid to do my work is more than just a "technicality." No argument, but how does that correspond with your "OBJECTIVELY" better assertion? Perfectly. It's the objective clients that pay the bills. Ok, no point in arguing with Humpty Dumpty then. TonyP. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Logan Shaw" wrote in message ... TonyP wrote: Yes, it really amuses me when they convert 128kbs MP3 back to CD. Well, the sound quality isn't any worse than listening to the 128kbps MP3s themselves, so if that sound quality is acceptable on the computer, I guess it's acceptable in the car or whatever as well. Of course, but playing the MP3's in the car gives me 10 hours per disk. TonyP. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... In article , Granted, the CD machine was a premium machine, but why even buy a second hand CD player that is more expensive than a brand new DVD player? Because it won't start skipping in the middle of a live gig. How do you guarantee that? Such faith in any mechanical device is touching. TonyP. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:58:58 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote: "Logan Shaw" wrote in message ... TonyP wrote: Yes, it really amuses me when they convert 128kbs MP3 back to CD. Well, the sound quality isn't any worse than listening to the 128kbps MP3s themselves, so if that sound quality is acceptable on the computer, I guess it's acceptable in the car or whatever as well. Of course, but playing the MP3's in the car gives me 10 hours per disk. TonyP. Your priorities are interesting for a person that professes to care about audio. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:13:31 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... In article , Granted, the CD machine was a premium machine, but why even buy a second hand CD player that is more expensive than a brand new DVD player? Because it won't start skipping in the middle of a live gig. How do you guarantee that? Such faith in any mechanical device is touching. TonyP. So were you born a prick, or are you a self-made man? |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"playon" playonATcomcast.net wrote in message ... On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:58:58 +1000, "TonyP" Of course, but playing the MP3's in the car gives me 10 hours per disk. Your priorities are interesting for a person that professes to care about audio. Why, I don't own a Rolls Royce, so better audio would be wasted there. MP3 just provides convenience. TonyP. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"playon" playonATcomcast.net wrote in message ... So were you born a prick, or are you a self-made man? You can always tell when someone has lost all logic, they resort to insults instead. TonyP. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Soundproofing and studios in the city | Pro Audio | |||
Road case for Computer/16 track recording?? | Pro Audio | |||
Att: Brian L. McCarty; Anthony Ramallo = McCarty sockpuppet; Brian L. McCarty as a twisted failure; David C.L. Feng, David Ellison, Huang, Ying Hong, 80 Raffles Place, Coral Sea Studios, WorldJazz, Enron, K1 Ventures, Trinity Beach, Cairns, Australi | Marketplace | |||
Att: Brian L. McCarty. Chick Corea doesn't like you anymore; David C.L. Feng, David Ellison, Huang, Ying Hong, 80 Raffles Place, Coral Sea Studios, WorldJazz, Enron, K1 Ventures, Trinity Beach, Cairns, Australia, Boomerang | Marketplace | |||
Dollar value of WorldJAZZ = 0; Brian L. McCarty = Bad Business; David C.L. Feng, David Ellison, Huang, Ying Hong, 80 Raffles Place, Coral Sea Studios, WorldJazz, Enron, K1 Ventures, Trinity Beach, Cairns, Australia, Boomerang | Marketplace |