Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On 2/27/2011 9:10 AM Randy Yates spake thus:
On 02/27/2011 12:04 AM, MalcolmO wrote: Hear, hear! Today people get recording contracts based on how photogenic they are. Machines sing them into tune. AND THEN Most commercial recordings today are released in a form which is far less than "16-bit" in quality - they have been deliberately compressed during the mastering process to sound "louder". They've been quashed, pummeled, clipped, gain-ridden, smelched, and squeezed down into a tiny dynamic range. And they wonder why we don't buy records! I thought it may be interesting to suggest some pre-digital era albums that were of better source quality than much of what gets put into 1's and 0's these days. How about, "Year of the Cat", by Al Stewart? I see you, and raise you: John McLaughlin/One Truth Band's "Electric Dreams", @1979. (Completely analog, so far as I can tell.) -- The phrase "jump the shark" itself jumped the shark about a decade ago. - Usenet |
#42
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Randy Yates" wrote in message m... Even if the source material was marginal, you'd still have sonic advantages with a CD. For example, the elimination of ticks and pops, wow-and-flutter, and rumble. But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... Gee I sure don't! And I certainly don't miss the ticks, pops, wow, flutter, and rumble either. Nor the cost of replacement stylii or cartridges. Or trying to find decently made vinyl records in the first place! In fact I can't think of one thing I miss besides the bigger cover art. But the storage hassle more than negates that IMO. Trevor. |
#43
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Edwin Hurwitz" wrote in message ... Ah, the good old days, I don't miss them a bit! Pro Tools, Logic, etc. rock! No argument from me! Trevor. |
#44
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Trevor" wrote in message
... "Randy Yates" wrote in message m... Even if the source material was marginal, you'd still have sonic advantages with a CD. For example, the elimination of ticks and pops, wow-and-flutter, and rumble. But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... Gee I sure don't! And I certainly don't miss the ticks, pops, wow, flutter, and rumble either. Nor the cost of replacement stylii or cartridges. Or trying to find decently made vinyl records in the first place! In fact I can't think of one thing I miss besides the bigger cover art. But the storage hassle more than negates that IMO. Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and compared it to the same release on CD then? You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound engineers that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the dynamic range like they do CD. |
#45
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:03:21 -0000, "David"
wrote: "Trevor" wrote in message u... "Randy Yates" wrote in message m... Even if the source material was marginal, you'd still have sonic advantages with a CD. For example, the elimination of ticks and pops, wow-and-flutter, and rumble. But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... Gee I sure don't! And I certainly don't miss the ticks, pops, wow, flutter, and rumble either. Nor the cost of replacement stylii or cartridges. Or trying to find decently made vinyl records in the first place! In fact I can't think of one thing I miss besides the bigger cover art. But the storage hassle more than negates that IMO. Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and compared it to the same release on CD then? You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound engineers that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the dynamic range like they do CD. That depends on the CD. |
#46
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"MadManMoon" wrote in message
... "Randy Yates" wrote in message m... Even if the source material was marginal, you'd still have sonic advantages with a CD. For example, the elimination of ticks and pops, wow-and-flutter, and rumble. But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... Gee I sure don't! And I certainly don't miss the ticks, pops, wow, flutter, and rumble either. Nor the cost of replacement stylii or cartridges. Or trying to find decently made vinyl records in the first place! In fact I can't think of one thing I miss besides the bigger cover art. But the storage hassle more than negates that IMO. Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and compared it to the same release on CD then? You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound engineers that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the dynamic range like they do CD. That depends on the CD. Which is why I put 'in general' as it has been what I have found more often than not. LPs do cost about 3 times the price of CDs now (~£18) but are 'in general' pressed on good quality heavy weight virgin vinyl. |
#47
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
Trevor expounded in
u: "Warren" wrote in message . 213... The superbowl HD was just as good with the mute button on as it was when it was off. Better surely? :-) Definitely during commercials!! The only detraction was the word "Mute" at the top of the screen. ;-) So just reduce the volume to zero instead, and there is no "Mute" overlay to annoy you. Trevor. Not a problem really. If I use my cable box for mute, the word vanishes after a short time. The TV mute is more invasive and stays there. Warren |
#48
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
In article ,
"David" wrote: "Trevor" wrote in message ... "Randy Yates" wrote in message m... Even if the source material was marginal, you'd still have sonic advantages with a CD. For example, the elimination of ticks and pops, wow-and-flutter, and rumble. But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... Gee I sure don't! And I certainly don't miss the ticks, pops, wow, flutter, and rumble either. Nor the cost of replacement stylii or cartridges. Or trying to find decently made vinyl records in the first place! In fact I can't think of one thing I miss besides the bigger cover art. But the storage hassle more than negates that IMO. Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and compared it to the same release on CD then? You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound engineers that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the dynamic range like they do CD. That's because in vinyl land they are trying to maximize the dynamic range in the face of the limitations of the medium, while with CDs they are knuckling under to pressure from the bean counters to make the CD as loud as possible. For some reason when people listen to CDs they can't find the volume knob and just turn the damn thing up. |
#49
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"David" wrote in message ... Even if the source material was marginal, you'd still have sonic advantages with a CD. For example, the elimination of ticks and pops, wow-and-flutter, and rumble. But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... Gee I sure don't! And I certainly don't miss the ticks, pops, wow, flutter, and rumble either. Nor the cost of replacement stylii or cartridges. Or trying to find decently made vinyl records in the first place! In fact I can't think of one thing I miss besides the bigger cover art. But the storage hassle more than negates that IMO. Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and compared it to the same release on CD then? You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound engineers that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the dynamic range like they do CD. Which of course has absolutely *nothing* to do with the pro's and cons of vinyl Vs CD, only the mastering choices. Trevor. |
#50
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"David" wrote in message ... Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and compared it to the same release on CD then? You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound engineers that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the dynamic range like they do CD. That depends on the CD. Which is why I put 'in general' as it has been what I have found more often than not. LPs do cost about 3 times the price of CDs now (~£18) but are 'in general' pressed on good quality heavy weight virgin vinyl. And are still far inferiror in every technical aspect than a standard CD, *IF* the same music is put on both. Whether it is or isn't is simply a marketing choice. Trevor. |
#51
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Edwin Hurwitz" wrote in message ... That's because in vinyl land they are trying to maximize the dynamic range in the face of the limitations of the medium, while with CDs they are knuckling under to pressure from the bean counters to make the CD as loud as possible. Yes amazing that the medium with the greater possible dynamic range often has less. BUT it's only a marketing choice, NOT an inherent benefit of vinyl as some people still claim after all these years. Trevor. |
#52
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:36:23 +0000 (UTC), Warren
wrote: Trevor expounded in . au: "Warren" wrote in message . 213... The superbowl HD was just as good with the mute button on as it was when it was off. Better surely? :-) Definitely during commercials!! The only detraction was the word "Mute" at the top of the screen. ;-) So just reduce the volume to zero instead, and there is no "Mute" overlay to annoy you. Trevor. Not a problem really. If I use my cable box for mute, the word vanishes after a short time. The TV mute is more invasive and stays there. Warren You do not have an A/V Receiver? |
#53
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:36:47 -0700, Edwin Hurwitz
wrote: In article , "David" wrote: "Trevor" wrote in message ... "Randy Yates" wrote in message m... Even if the source material was marginal, you'd still have sonic advantages with a CD. For example, the elimination of ticks and pops, wow-and-flutter, and rumble. But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... Gee I sure don't! And I certainly don't miss the ticks, pops, wow, flutter, and rumble either. Nor the cost of replacement stylii or cartridges. Or trying to find decently made vinyl records in the first place! In fact I can't think of one thing I miss besides the bigger cover art. But the storage hassle more than negates that IMO. Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and compared it to the same release on CD then? You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound engineers that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the dynamic range like they do CD. That's because in vinyl land they are trying to maximize the dynamic range in the face of the limitations of the medium, The slew rate (speed) of the cutting lathe's tool head, and the limits of the playback stylus' ability to read a given peak. What is the window of operation that Vinyl enjoys? while with CDs they are knuckling under to pressure from the bean counters to make the CD as loud as possible. Not in all cases. Just "modern" music, and "modern" producers and engineers even. In the beginning folks actually tried to compose acceptable mix-downs from the multi-track masters that were used to make the lathe head mix downs. I remember lyrics like "..when honor meant more to a man than life..." AND the music that went with it. For some reason when people listen to CDs they can't find the volume knob and just turn the damn thing up. The problems go far deeper than that. Oh well. At lest we *should* be able to make a good transition to high clarity, low noise recorded tracks. Hell, I should be able to do pretty good right here on my PC, on my 8 year old Sound Blaster. Atlast compared to some of what I have heard on disc. I STILL say that one of the best albums ever made, despite having a couple gaps and other artifacts, is a live album. James Gang, Live At Carnegie Hall THAT was what "loud" rock and roll was about. It would be cool if Joe would get that band back together and do that tour again with modern amps and drivers! You should give it a listen LOUDLY. If you can't, then use headphones or even ear plug types. Excellent album. |
#54
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:36:47 -0700, Edwin Hurwitz
wrote: But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... Try making moist breath on the needle (and record) as it plays. You would be surprised at the absence of clicks suddenly. Static is a big one. |
#55
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message ... Which of course has absolutely *nothing* to do with the pro's and cons of vinyl Vs CD, only the mastering choices. The problem is people don't listen to CD or Vinyl. It is _music_ they listen to. All the wonderful technical parameters don't make music any better. Right, or necessarily any worse. Sure, CD looks better on paper. But it is already rule of thumb that almost everything that goes on CD is of inferior quality An opinion you get to have, but there is very little to actually compare, let alone arrive at such a sweeping conclusion. Of course "almost everything that goes on CD" never even makes it to vinyl these days! while those who make LPs take great care to do the best job possible to overcome media shortcomings. That makes the resulting _music_ from LP beating CD by a huge margin despite CD being better media on paper. Once again you forget to add "In your opinion", and neglect to mention that only a MINISCULE amount of music being made these days is available on vinyl in any case! I would certainly hope that the tiny percentage that does make it to vinyl is more carefully produced/manufactured than what it was in days gone by, especially considering the huge price premium now being asked. Just try to listen to e.g. Bob Marley "Uprising" on a CD. It is a worst nightmare I ever heard. That is why I have all his records on LPs. CDs don't even come close to those. But they are better on paper, yes. Right, and any differences are simply production/marketing choices or compromises. Vinyl certainly requires far more of the latter! One can easily copy a vinyl record to CD without any loss of quality. The reverse is simply impossible. And CD's/SACD's/DVDA's aimed at the audiophile ( and audiophool) market are still far more numerous than new vinyl releases, despite being a tiny percentage of the market. Trevor. |
#56
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
David wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message ... "Randy Yates" wrote in message m... Even if the source material was marginal, you'd still have sonic advantages with a CD. For example, the elimination of ticks and pops, wow-and-flutter, and rumble. But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... Gee I sure don't! And I certainly don't miss the ticks, pops, wow, flutter, and rumble either. Nor the cost of replacement stylii or cartridges. Or trying to find decently made vinyl records in the first place! In fact I can't think of one thing I miss besides the bigger cover art. But the storage hassle more than negates that IMO. Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and compared it to the same release on CD then? You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound engineers that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the dynamic range like they do CD. They don't need to - the medium does it for them ! Or low-level detail is lost. Are you suggesting that those same engineers for some bizarre reason over-compress the CD releases of that same material? Then they are incompetent ! Or are you commenting on the general 'norms' of CD mastering these days ? geoff |
#57
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
MadManMoon wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:36:47 -0700, Edwin Hurwitz wrote: But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... Try making moist breath on the needle (and record) as it plays. You would be surprised at the absence of clicks suddenly. Static is a big one. So much for the 'ideal listening position' ! geoff |
#58
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
Much of that worth listening does. As of remaining 99.9% of that monotonic indiscernible from each other noise I don't care. Please don't denegrate reggae music like that. geoff |
#59
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
Sure, CD looks better on paper. But it is already rule of thumb that almost everything that goes on CD is of inferior quality while those who make LPs take great care to do the best job possible to overcome media shortcomings. That makes the resulting _music_ from LP beating CD by a huge margin despite CD being better media on paper. Sorry, your thumb may be non-standard, the issue is that those that master for grammophone records tend to know what they are doing and master completely different from how those that !!!MASTER FOR CD'S DO IT!!! Just try to listen to e.g. Bob Marley "Uprising" on a CD. It is a worst nightmare I ever heard. A lot of early digital transcriptions ought to be re-done. That is why I have all his records on LPs. CDs don't even come close to those. But they are better on paper, yes. What you assert is that nothing happened with AD conversion quality between 1985 and 2011. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#60
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"MadManMoon" wrote in
message On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:36:47 -0700, Edwin Hurwitz wrote: That's because in vinyl land they are trying to maximize the dynamic range in the face of the limitations of the medium, The slew rate (speed) of the cutting lathe's tool head, and the limits of the playback stylus' ability to read a given peak. What is the window of operation that Vinyl enjoys? If memory serves, vinyl's dynamic range starts falling pretty rapidly above about 8 KHz. While CD-4 recordings were made with 30+ KHz carriers on them, those signals were cut at very low levels. Playing them tends to erase them after a few playings, even with the best cartridges and stylii. People I know who have experimented with CD4 tell me that about 10 playings is it. |
#61
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message
Sure, CD looks better on paper. But it is already rule of thumb that almost everything that goes on CD is of inferior quality while those who make LPs take great care to do the best job possible to overcome media shortcomings. That makes the resulting _music_ from LP beating CD by a huge margin despite CD being better media on paper. LP media limitations are well known to create a technological strait jacket that very few people have the patience to try to escape from. There's a reason why the CD blew the LP out of the mainstream music market and that is better sound quality almost all of the time. The idea that you have put your production people into strait jackets to get the best work out of them is positively wierd and just a little insulting. One unsaid thing about LP production in 2010 is that it is only for a premium, niche market. I googled the price of the LP, and found that it was over $45 and needs to be special ordered. The CD is being sold by Best Buy for $9.99. If the CD is poorly mastered, then its buyers have nobody to blame but themselves. Refuse to buy badly mastered CDs! If you stumble into one, try to take it back and make a big fuss! Don't throw out the baby with the bath water! Just try to listen to e.g. Bob Marley "Uprising" on a CD. It is a worst nightmare I ever heard. That is why I have all his records on LPs. CDs don't even come close to those. But they are better on paper, yes. Here we have a myth supported by very limited evidence. |
#62
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message
Much of that worth listening does. Any reasonble comparison of the number of new releases on LP and CD makes that look like a fantasy. What I see is a diehard LP fan who has limited his musical tastes to the limitations of his hobby-horse medium. |
#63
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k What you assert is that nothing happened with AD conversion quality between 1985 and 2011. In terms of sound quality from the best performing hardware, there was no change. In terms of price/performance, the changes were huge. Therefore, the sound quality of everyday digital gear did improve quite a bit. |
#64
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 19:41:43 +1300, "geoff" wrote:
MadManMoon wrote: On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:36:47 -0700, Edwin Hurwitz wrote: But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... Try making moist breath on the needle (and record) as it plays. You would be surprised at the absence of clicks suddenly. Static is a big one. So much for the 'ideal listening position' ! geoff That was not the point. |
#65
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 07:25:01 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "MadManMoon" wrote in message On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:36:47 -0700, Edwin Hurwitz wrote: That's because in vinyl land they are trying to maximize the dynamic range in the face of the limitations of the medium, The slew rate (speed) of the cutting lathe's tool head, and the limits of the playback stylus' ability to read a given peak. What is the window of operation that Vinyl enjoys? If memory serves, vinyl's dynamic range starts falling pretty rapidly above about 8 KHz. While CD-4 recordings were made with 30+ KHz carriers on them, those signals were cut at very low levels. Playing them tends to erase them after a few playings, even with the best cartridges and stylii. People I know who have experimented with CD4 tell me that about 10 playings is it. I wonder what format the audio tracks on a Laser Disc were put down as. |
#66
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"geoff" wrote in message
Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and compared it to the same release on CD then? You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound engineers that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the dynamic range like they do CD. Are you suggesting that those same engineers for some bizarre reason over-compress the CD releases of that same material? Then they are incompetent ! Indeed they do and it's not incompetence, it's marketing pressure......'Loud is good' and all that bollox. The majority of people that buy digital music formats play it as background music or in cars or on Ipods etc. so dynamic range is wasted on them. The majority of people that still buy vinyl, sit down and listen to it. Yes CD could be much better than vinyl but in reallity because of the mastering, it's not. D |
#67
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"MadManMoon" wrote in
message On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 07:25:01 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MadManMoon" wrote in message On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:36:47 -0700, Edwin Hurwitz wrote: That's because in vinyl land they are trying to maximize the dynamic range in the face of the limitations of the medium, The slew rate (speed) of the cutting lathe's tool head, and the limits of the playback stylus' ability to read a given peak. What is the window of operation that Vinyl enjoys? If memory serves, vinyl's dynamic range starts falling pretty rapidly above about 8 KHz. While CD-4 recordings were made with 30+ KHz carriers on them, those signals were cut at very low levels. Playing them tends to erase them after a few playings, even with the best cartridges and stylii. People I know who have experimented with CD4 tell me that about 10 playings is it. I wonder what format the audio tracks on a Laser Disc were put down as. If memory serves: On older LDs, the sound was recorded in FM and also received DBX noise reduction or something like it. Later LDs had regular Linear PCM tracks like CDs. Full truth he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc |
#68
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
David wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message Yet another person that hasn't listened to a recent release on vinyl and compared it to the same release on CD then? You'd be eating your words if you had. For some reason the sound engineers that mix vinyl, in general, don't compress the hell out of the dynamic range like they do CD. Are you suggesting that those same engineers for some bizarre reason over-compress the CD releases of that same material? Then they are incompetent ! Indeed they do and it's not incompetence, it's marketing pressure......'Loud is good' and all that bollox. The majority of people that buy digital music formats play it as background music or in cars or on Ipods etc. so dynamic range is wasted on them. The majority of people that still buy vinyl, sit down and listen to it. Yes CD could be much better than vinyl but in reallity because of the mastering, it's not. Well the answer is to record the vinyl onto CD and play it back from there ! The different mastering (and noise, distortion, wow, flutter, limited frequency and dynamic response, etc) will all be faithfully reproduced ! geoff |
#69
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
In article ,
"Trevor" wrote: "Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message ... Which of course has absolutely *nothing* to do with the pro's and cons of vinyl Vs CD, only the mastering choices. The problem is people don't listen to CD or Vinyl. It is _music_ they listen to. All the wonderful technical parameters don't make music any better. Right, or necessarily any worse. Sure, CD looks better on paper. But it is already rule of thumb that almost everything that goes on CD is of inferior quality An opinion you get to have, but there is very little to actually compare, let alone arrive at such a sweeping conclusion. Of course "almost everything that goes on CD" never even makes it to vinyl these days! while those who make LPs take great care to do the best job possible to overcome media shortcomings. That makes the resulting _music_ from LP beating CD by a huge margin despite CD being better media on paper. Once again you forget to add "In your opinion", and neglect to mention that only a MINISCULE amount of music being made these days is available on vinyl in any case! I would certainly hope that the tiny percentage that does make it to vinyl is more carefully produced/manufactured than what it was in days gone by, especially considering the huge price premium now being asked. And I think that David Glasser and all his colleagues at Airshow Mastering (the only masterers I know personally, so I feel like I can predict their response fairly accurately) would take exception to the idea that they approach their craft with any less diligence simply because their products would end up on a CD or other digital medium. Their Grammies would seem to validate their attention to their craft. Edwin |
#70
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message ... These days most of it is like SPAM. There is no difference what brand it is or what color the label is, it is SPAM. And there is no need for a french chief for this, everybody would do. It is no longer needed that one can sing or play a musical instrument to become a "musician" or a "singer" -- 99% of all, sorry for an expression, music is just dancing to a phonogram an showing boobs. They can be deaf and dumb but still be "singers." No voice required. While your opinion is shared by many, I fail to see how that makes vinyl better than CD. ANYTHING can be released on either format, and frankly I prefer a format which is technically superior, more convenient, cheaper, AND allows ME a far greater choice. That you prefer your choices to be limited to what is put on vinyl these days is your right, and you are welcome to it. Trevor. |
#71
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message ... Well the answer is to record the vinyl onto CD and play it back from there The different mastering (and noise, distortion, wow, flutter, limited frequency and dynamic response, etc) will all be faithfully reproduced ! That is exactly what some of us, including myself, are doing. As a matter of fact it is not just copying to a CD -- they are digitized in 24/96 and that digitized material is saved and listened to if conditions permit. Only the technically illiterate believe ANY vinyl requires 24/96 recording. Even 14 bits is overkill for vinyl. So IF you actually find a record with frequencies over 22kHz that you dog really likes, just save it at 16/88 or 16/96 and save yourself a few bytes :-) Trevor. |
#72
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"geoff" wrote in message ... Sergey Kubushyn wrote: Much of that worth listening does. As of remaining 99.9% of that monotonic indiscernible from each other noise I don't care. Please don't denegrate reggae music like that. Reggae, I thought he meant ©RAP. :-) Trevor. |
#73
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message k... the issue is that those that master for grammophone records tend to know what they are doing and master completely different from how those that !!!MASTER FOR CD'S DO IT!!! One would hope so! Most learnt 25 years ago that what is required for vinyl's limitations is NOT required for CD. (Unfortunately the loudness wars are another issue) A lot of early digital transcriptions ought to be re-done. Most have been thankfully, but not all are improvements :-( Trevor. |
#74
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... While CD-4 recordings were made with 30+ KHz carriers on them, those signals were cut at very low levels. Playing them tends to erase them after a few playings, even with the best cartridges and stylii. People I know who have experimented with CD4 tell me that about 10 playings is it. Depends on many factors. My B&O MMC6000 could still recover the carrier after *FAR* more playings than that. Of course the actual surround signal was pretty crap to begin with on most (all?) CD4 records, just as might be expected from such a compromised system. Trevor. |
#75
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Here we have a myth supported by very limited evidence. Actually no evidence, just opinion. Trevor. |
#76
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Edwin Hurwitz" wrote in message ... And I think that David Glasser and all his colleagues at Airshow Mastering (the only masterers I know personally, so I feel like I can predict their response fairly accurately) would take exception to the idea that they approach their craft with any less diligence simply because their products would end up on a CD or other digital medium. Their Grammies would seem to validate their attention to their craft. No Argument, and would contradict the silly claim that *only* vinyl records have proper mastering these days right! Trevor. |
#77
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 02:31:18 +0000 (UTC), Sergey Kubushyn
wrote: both ways but usually it is what happens. You do NOT *know* that. You do NOT work in a recording studio. You do NOT know what the **** you are squawking about. EACH production is unique, and MANY get the SAME level of care that a vinyl mix down got. What a presumptuous twit you must be to say that. It's OK though. You have successfully given yourself away as someone that makes **** up as you go along. |
#78
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message ... That does _NOT_ mean I personally cut my own LPs No, I do use CD as a media for everyday listening and 24/96 digital files for archival purposes. But if there is a choice of getting some recording in either form I will always choose vinyl as my primary source. Then I'll make 2 copies of it, one as 24/96 file and--oh horror!--another one as analog tape. Wow, given the cost of R-R tape these days, and it's poor quality compared to digital (I won't even mention how woefull cassettes are!) that is truly amazing. But some people still think 78's are the only real media, so I guess it takes all kinds. Anyone still claiming cylinders are the best I wonder? :-) And for the record I still have my Revox tape recorder, but I haven't even turned it on in nearly a decade! (Wonder if it still works?) My Thorens TT still works for copying old vinyl. Certainly wouldn't waste my money on any new discs though. Trevor. |
#79
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
"Sergey Kubushyn" wrote in message ... Thanks for a suggestion but now, I won't do it. Music is _NOT_ a pure sinusoidal waves and there are other things like attack, shape etc. The primary mistake all those proponents of wonderful digital sound make is assumption that analog audio ends at 20KHz. It doesn't. It doesn't end even at 30KHz and higher. Its amplitude falls quite rapidly, yes, but there is no such an abrupt cutoff at 22KHz. Right, the auditory system collapses well before that, unless you are an 8 YO girl! Another reason, totally unrelated, for 24/96 is that is a standard de-facto these days. All those 16/88 and 16/96 are not. And storage is dirt cheap these days to save pennies by using some weird format. And how much do you pay for tape these days (per your other post) Now that's a weird format these days! :-) Trevor. |
#80
Posted to rec.music.gdead,rec.audio.tech,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
24-bit on tap at Apple?
On 02/27/2011 09:02 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Randy wrote in message m... Even if the source material was marginal, you'd still have sonic advantages with a CD. For example, the elimination of ticks and pops, wow-and-flutter, and rumble. But I miss my anti-static gun, dirt brush, and Yamaha direct-drive turntable nonetheless... Gee I sure don't! And I certainly don't miss the ticks, pops, wow, flutter, and rumble either. Nor the cost of replacement stylii or cartridges. Or trying to find decently made vinyl records in the first place! In fact I can't think of one thing I miss besides the bigger cover art. But the storage hassle more than negates that IMO. Trevor, You've missed my point completely. I miss the nostalgia of the era. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs 919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|