Records again
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:54:01 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article ):
On Sep 15, 11:10=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:27:31 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article ):
=A0 =A0 A typical concert in a symphony hall is about hour and a half, =
my
be two hours. You know why? Because it is as much as audience can
bear. Long live concert is a tiring thing. So it rather proves =A0that
reproduction =A0from LP is less demanding on your ears and brain :-)
I would suspect that the cumulative effect of sitting in an auditorium se=
at
amongst hundreds of other concert-goers rattling their programs, coughing=
,
sneezing, and squirming in their seats has a lot more to do with that tha=
n
does the live music. Listening at home from the comfort of one's easy cha=
ir,
is lot less stressful.
So, live performance is full of different little noises that are
masking subtleties in a musical performance. Well documented technical
shortcomings of LP are doing the same - masking subtle nuances in a
music and it makes job for your ears and brain easier by reducing
amount of information to process. That was my point all along, that
your ears and brain do more work listening to CD - they are getting
more information to process. So, your so called "fatigue" is kind of
expected.
Actually, there's no evidence presented to support that assertion. Logically
speaking, if you're going to go down that path, the record noise and
especially the "horrible distortion" of LP playback should cause far more
listening fatigue than the clean purity of CD. You can't have it both ways.
Study after study, over many decades, have shown that various types of
distortion are THE primary CAUSE of listening fatigue. If you (and Mr.
Kruger) are going to go on record (no pun intended) by asserting that the
clarity and freedom from distortion in CD is what causes listener fatigue in
CD, due to the extra detail present in digital recordings, then you are
flying in the face of countless scientific studies which have found that just
the opposite should be true.
Also, I tend to agree with Arnie that your whole life experience
of listening LP's can create a bias in your mind.
vlad
Mr. Kruger is wrong in my case. I don't dislike CD, I just don't dislike LP
the way he does. AFAIC, both are valid musical sources and both are
enjoyable. Just because I have noticed that I can listen to LP longer than I
can CD without "listening fatigue" setting in, doesn't mean that I eschew
CD, or, indeed any part of digital reproduction. On the contrary. I probably
listen to far more CDs than LPs.
OTOH, when doing location recording (another avocation of mine), I wouldn't
record any other way. I've had my fill of lugging heavy road cases full of
pro tape recorders weighing-in at 50 Kg or so and then connecting them with
huge, heavy mixing boards, along with Dolby units and outboard power-supplies
for the microphones. Then spending an hour before rolling tape making sure
that the heads are properly aligned, and the EQ is correct for the tape being
used, etc., etc., etc. So nice it is to use a mixer the size of a briefcase,
with built-in phantom power for the microphones and to use a pair of digital
recorders (the main one being DSD, the "back-up" one being 24/96 LPCM) not
much larger than a couple of packs of cigarettes, and getting absolutely
stunning recordings from both. In fact, when I compare some of my better
analog recordings with some of my recent digital work, I find the digital
recordings to be better in every way. Sure, the modern recordings are
quieter, the mixers have better S/N and certainly the dynamic range of DSD or
even 24/96 LPCM is greater than anything possible via analog, but that's not
really what I'm talking about. The recordings just SOUND better. they have
better imaging, they are smoother in frequency response, and they are a LOT
cleaner. I don't really know how much of that to attribute to the modern
microphones that I use (alas, I no longer own the Sony C37Ps that I used to
record with back in analog days, so I cannot compare those), and how much to
attribute to the modern electronics, and how much to attribute to the digital
recorders, themselves, but Modern digital recordings, even when recorded
using modest equipment, can be stunningly real and better than anything one
can buy commercially.
|