"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:45:58 +1200, "Geoff"
wrote:

Mr. Tapeguy wrote:
James Price wrote:
I was reading an interview with Tom Scholz (Boston) in
which he was asked what his beef with digital is. He
replied as follows, however I'm wondering if others
agree with his assessment?


You know we could get into a lot of technical
gobbledygook as the forums often do but the bottom line
is how do you like the way it sounds? Digital has many
advantages over analog but I think all of us oldtimers
find the analog sound to be warmer and more pleasing in
a number of ways. Ultimately that's the test.

So ultimately we may ask a string quartet to perform
through a veil to make it sound like analogue recording ?

geoff

This is very witty, but though I don't advocate a return
to LPs I can understand what about them attracts people.

Yup sentimentality and ears that are far enough gone so that they don't hear
all of the bad stuff that the LP format adds.

When I listen to a live orchestra in the concert hall it
somehow sounds "analogue' to me, not digital.

Speaks to your unfortunate experience with bad digital, Paul.

In other words, I don't hear treble "glare" nor experience
listener fatigue.

Time to upgrade your system, Paul.

And ultimately live music has to be the criterion.

It's like Paul even knows what real-world live music sounds like, even in
his dreams.

On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:20:54 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:45:58 +1200, "Geoff"
wrote:

Mr. Tapeguy wrote:
James Price wrote:
I was reading an interview with Tom Scholz (Boston) in
which he was asked what his beef with digital is. He
replied as follows, however I'm wondering if others
agree with his assessment?


You know we could get into a lot of technical
gobbledygook as the forums often do but the bottom line
is how do you like the way it sounds? Digital has many
advantages over analog but I think all of us oldtimers
find the analog sound to be warmer and more pleasing in
a number of ways. Ultimately that's the test.

So ultimately we may ask a string quartet to perform
through a veil to make it sound like analogue recording ?

geoff

This is very witty, but though I don't advocate a return
to LPs I can understand what about them attracts people.

Yup sentimentality and ears that are far enough gone so that they don't hear
all of the bad stuff that the LP format adds.

Thanks, Arnie. I wouldn't hear it anyway as I don't own a turntable.
I'm not interested in analogue on convenience grounds.

When I listen to a live orchestra in the concert hall it
somehow sounds "analogue' to me, not digital.

Speaks to your unfortunate experience with bad digital, Paul.

No, Arnold, speaks of a mass experience of bad digital. I personally
think things are improving, but there are still too many harsh CDs out
there.

In other words, I don't hear treble "glare" nor experience
listener fatigue.

Time to upgrade your system, Paul.

You're a brave man, Arnold. There aren't too many who would seriously
claim that all is well in the world of digital. Even those totally
committed to digital, such as myself, rarely claim there's no room for
improvement, or that digital has gone as far as it can. They obviously
don't have your bionic ears or indomitable courage.

And ultimately live music has to be the criterion.

It's like Paul even knows what real-world live music sounds like, even in
his dreams.

Well, I've attended many concerts in the Concert Hall of the Sydney
Opera House, including one truly memorable one by the Moscow
Philharmonic when something fell from a light fixture and almost
brained a bass player. What would qualify me as someone who knows what
live music sounds like in your addled brain, Arnold?

(paul packer) said:


Well, I've attended many concerts in the Concert Hall of the Sydney
Opera House, including one truly memorable one by the Moscow
Philharmonic when something fell from a light fixture and almost
brained a bass player. What would qualify me as someone who knows what
live music sounds like in your addled brain, Arnold?


Simple, really.
You must record your local church choir at least 3 times a month.

Having a closet full of cheap microphones usually helps, too.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

On Fri, 26 May 2006 16:02:03 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(paul packer) said:


Well, I've attended many concerts in the Concert Hall of the Sydney
Opera House, including one truly memorable one by the Moscow
Philharmonic when something fell from a light fixture and almost
brained a bass player. What would qualify me as someone who knows what
live music sounds like in your addled brain, Arnold?


Simple, really.
You must record your local church choir at least 3 times a month.

Having a closet full of cheap microphones usually helps, too.


LOL!

You certainly know how to hit below the belt, Sander. :-)

On Fri, 26 May 2006 14:26:23 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

On Fri, 26 May 2006 16:02:03 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(paul packer) said:


Well, I've attended many concerts in the Concert Hall of the Sydney
Opera House, including one truly memorable one by the Moscow
Philharmonic when something fell from a light fixture and almost
brained a bass player. What would qualify me as someone who knows what
live music sounds like in your addled brain, Arnold?


Simple, really.
You must record your local church choir at least 3 times a month.

Having a closet full of cheap microphones usually helps, too.


LOL!

You certainly know how to hit below the belt, Sander. :-)

Hey, belt sander! I made a funny! Gee I'm amazing.

(paul packer) said:


You certainly know how to hit below the belt, Sander. :-)

Hey, belt sander! I made a funny! Gee I'm amazing.


And so, paranoia is rampant.
Now people think even *I* belong to the "Evil Belt Empire".

SHP, if you hear this, you owe me yet another can of cream !

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

Sander deWaal said:

What would qualify me as someone who knows what
live music sounds like in your addled brain, Arnold?

Simple, really.
You must record your local church choir at least 3 times a month.

Having a closet full of cheap microphones usually helps, too.

I think that qualifies as a "Snap!"

Don't worry, Arnii. Nobody in your church cares about your "pro" chops. As
long as the price is right, it's all good.





--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

As I understand it, the reason digital doesn't sound as good as analogue is
as follows (simplified because I don't remember every exact technical
detail):

44.1 KHz (usual sampling rate), is enough to capture all frequencies that
the human ear can hear.

However, it doesn't capture those funny frequencies below and above the
hearing thresholds which many natural (and electronic!) instruments
generate.

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add something subliminal
to the way the music affects you. Difficult to put ones finger on.... but I
suppose its also true to say its difficult to put your finger on the reason
why you think a particular piece of music is so great... and for that reason
I don't think one should be so quick to dismiss this explanation as
un-scientific mumbo-jumbo .

Ro

PS Bet thats been said in this forum 50 times before. New here..


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:45:58 +1200, "Geoff"
wrote:

Mr. Tapeguy wrote:
James Price wrote:
I was reading an interview with Tom Scholz (Boston) in
which he was asked what his beef with digital is. He
replied as follows, however I'm wondering if others
agree with his assessment?


You know we could get into a lot of technical
gobbledygook as the forums often do but the bottom line
is how do you like the way it sounds? Digital has many
advantages over analog but I think all of us oldtimers
find the analog sound to be warmer and more pleasing in
a number of ways. Ultimately that's the test.

So ultimately we may ask a string quartet to perform
through a veil to make it sound like analogue recording ?

geoff

This is very witty, but though I don't advocate a return
to LPs I can understand what about them attracts people.

Yup sentimentality and ears that are far enough gone so that they don't
hear all of the bad stuff that the LP format adds.

When I listen to a live orchestra in the concert hall it
somehow sounds "analogue' to me, not digital.

Speaks to your unfortunate experience with bad digital, Paul.

In other words, I don't hear treble "glare" nor experience
listener fatigue.

Time to upgrade your system, Paul.

And ultimately live music has to be the criterion.

It's like Paul even knows what real-world live music sounds like, even in
his dreams.

"roke" wrote in message

As I understand it, the reason digital doesn't sound as
good as analogue is as follows (simplified because I
don't remember every exact technical detail):

44.1 KHz (usual sampling rate), is enough to capture all
frequencies that the human ear can hear.

However, it doesn't capture those funny frequencies below
and above the hearing thresholds which many natural (and
electronic!) instruments generate.

This statement has to be at least half completely and totally because there
is no theoretical limit to the lowest frequency that can be accuratly
conveyed by a digital format. The practical limit relates to the length of
the recording. IOW if a recording is 10 minutes or 600 seconds long, then
the lowest frequency that recording can convey is 1/600 th of a Hz. This is
true for either digital or analog recordings. However there are practical
reasons why no analog recording comes anywhere near this.

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that this is right if there
are no conscous affects?

Difficult to put ones finger on.... but I suppose its
also true to say its difficult to put your finger on the
reason why you think a particular piece of music is so
great... and for that reason I don't think one should be
so quick to dismiss this explanation as un-scientific
mumbo-jumbo .

What, just because your theory is unprovable unscientific, and full of
mumbo-jumbo?

LOL!

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that this is right if there
are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that this
is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that this
is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

Why don't you dispute it then?

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that this
is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

You have proof he didn't measure brain waves?

Stephen

Arny Krueger wrote:
"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that this
is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

Once again you're set on proving that what I said once was right:
you're responsable for much of what is wrong with RAO.
You really don't see what is obvious to anyone reading you: you
convinced yourself that this kind of 4th grade smart aleck answer is
good enough for posting here.
MNe quotes research from a Dept. of physiology and you "answer"
it as above.
You make one ashamed to participate
Ludovic Mirabel

On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:04:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

This statement has to be at least half completely and totally because there
is no theoretical limit

Eh?

paul packer said:

This statement has to be at least half completely and totally because there
is no theoretical limit

Eh?

Please don't bat the Krooglish around like that. Just flush it away.




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


paul packer said:

This statement has to be at least half completely and totally because
there
is no theoretical limit

Eh?

Please don't bat the Krooglish around like that. Just flush it away.

It sounds a bit like "Valley Speak". Where did Arny learn how to talk like a
Valley Girl?

Recording engineers using tape would usually push recording levels up into
the red.. This produced a saturated effect on the tape somewhat similar to a
compression type effect. This produced a warm, full sound.

Try to push the levels into the red with digital and you just get clipping.


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:45:58 +1200, "Geoff"
wrote:

Mr. Tapeguy wrote:
James Price wrote:
I was reading an interview with Tom Scholz (Boston) in
which he was asked what his beef with digital is. He
replied as follows, however I'm wondering if others
agree with his assessment?


You know we could get into a lot of technical
gobbledygook as the forums often do but the bottom line
is how do you like the way it sounds? Digital has many
advantages over analog but I think all of us oldtimers
find the analog sound to be warmer and more pleasing in
a number of ways. Ultimately that's the test.

So ultimately we may ask a string quartet to perform
through a veil to make it sound like analogue recording ?

geoff

This is very witty, but though I don't advocate a return
to LPs I can understand what about them attracts people.

Yup sentimentality and ears that are far enough gone so that they don't
hear all of the bad stuff that the LP format adds.

When I listen to a live orchestra in the concert hall it
somehow sounds "analogue' to me, not digital.

Speaks to your unfortunate experience with bad digital, Paul.

In other words, I don't hear treble "glare" nor experience
listener fatigue.

Time to upgrade your system, Paul.

And ultimately live music has to be the criterion.

It's like Paul even knows what real-world live music sounds like, even in
his dreams.

"roke" wrote in message


Recording engineers using tape would usually push
recording levels up into the red..

No such rule exists.

This produced a
saturated effect on the tape somewhat similar to a
compression type effect. This produced a warm, full
sound.

No, it produces a mushy sound.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"roke" wrote in message


Recording engineers using tape would usually push
recording levels up into the red..

No such rule exists.

This produced a
saturated effect on the tape somewhat similar to a
compression type effect. This produced a warm, full
sound.

No, it produces a mushy sound.


Rules my hole. It was/is common PRACTICE to drive the signals and saturate
the tape. This gives more 'headroom' than digital (thus greater dynamics).
If you listen to this phenomenon on analog recordings (analogue recorded
vinyl on good equipment) you will find it has a warm effect and will not
sound flawed. Digital, however, has virtually no 'headroom'. If distortion
occurs it is very brash and sounds very flawed.
"Digital preserves music the way that formaldehyde preserves frogs. You kill
it, and it lasts forever."

"roke" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"roke" wrote in message


Recording engineers using tape would usually push
recording levels up into the red..

No such rule exists.

This produced a
saturated effect on the tape somewhat similar to a
compression type effect. This produced a warm, full
sound.

No, it produces a mushy sound.


Rules my hole. It was/is common PRACTICE to drive the signals and saturate
the tape. This gives more 'headroom' than digital (thus greater dynamics).
If you listen to this phenomenon on analog recordings (analogue recorded
vinyl on good equipment) you will find it has a warm effect and will not
sound flawed. Digital, however, has virtually no 'headroom'. If distortion
occurs it is very brash and sounds very flawed.

Your ignoring the lower noise floor of digital. There is no reason to clip
in
digital recording.

"Digital preserves music the way that formaldehyde preserves frogs. You
kill it, and it lasts forever."

If your gonna clip everything...yeah... but that's just incompetent.

ScottW

"roke" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"roke" wrote in message


Recording engineers using tape would usually push
recording levels up into the red..

No such rule exists.

This produced a
saturated effect on the tape somewhat similar to a
compression type effect. This produced a warm, full
sound.

No, it produces a mushy sound.

Rules my hole. It was/is common PRACTICE to drive the
signals and saturate the tape.

It can't be common practice any more, because hardly anybody still uses
tape.

What people did when tape was all they had is pretty irrelevant here, more
than 20 years later.

This gives more 'headroom' than digital (thus greater dynamics).

Horsefeathers, tape does not give more dynamics than good digital.

If you mean that distorted sound tends to sound "louder" than undistorted
sound, then that's true, but so what?

If you listen to
this phenomenon on analog recordings (analogue recorded
vinyl on good equipment) you will find it has a warm
effect and will not sound flawed.

You call it warm and unflawed, I call it what it is - distorted.

Digital, however, has virtually no 'headroom'.

Horsefeathers. Good digital has far more dynamic range, and therefore its
far easier to run with lots of headroom.

If distortion occurs it is very brash and sounds very flawed.

If you can set levels to avoid that, how incompetent are you, anyway?

"Digital preserves music
the way that formaldehyde preserves frogs. You kill it,
and it lasts forever."

Nonsense. The worst thing that can be said about good digital is that the
signal that is played back is indistinguishable from the signal that was
recorded.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
[snip]

Horsefeathers. Good digital has far more dynamic range, and therefore its
far easier to run with lots of headroom.

If distortion occurs it is very brash and sounds very flawed.

If you can set levels to avoid that, how incompetent are you, anyway?

"Digital preserves music
the way that formaldehyde preserves frogs. You kill it,
and it lasts forever."

Nonsense. The worst thing that can be said about good digital is that the
signal that is played back is indistinguishable from the signal that was
recorded.
Arny, in support of your point, I relate the following. I have been using a
Sound Devices 744T to record musicians in public places in NY. I've made a
number of beginner's mistakes. But with two stage optical limiting, and
immense headroom in the mike circuits, the sound is still impeccable. A
friend of mine, a tubophile, remarks that it doesn't sound like solid state.
It doesn't sound like anything. It is simply a superb recording device.