Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
Mike Rivers wrote: "
Well, sheeeeyuttttt! Mix and process a recording so it will sound like people expect a CD to sound and mix and process it again so that it will sound like people expect a phonograph record to sound and of course they'll be different. But it's not because of the medium, it's because of the people getting paid to make the best product they can ("best" is of course subjective) for the medium that they're working with. " Exactly the point I was trying to make. It's not the medium. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
|
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
|
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
geoff wrote: "Can you drop the 'Direct-To-Disc CD' thingh you've imagined up and
just call it an unprocessed digital recording. That is apart from whatever processing is in the signal chain for the vinyl version, presumably minimal if we are talking purists. " What issues do you have with unprocessed recordings, analog or digital? |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 9/02/2017 5:24 p.m., John Williamson wrote:
On 08/02/2017 19:09, geoff wrote: On 9/02/2017 3:04 AM, wrote: John Williamson: My thanks to Nyquist and the original developers of Redbook are sincere. And I understand about generations in the digital realm. My comment was with regards to "direct to disc" recordings, vinyl and CD. If you feed a live session to both a CD recorder and vinyl lacquer, there should be little difference between them in sound quality. If there is *significant* audible difference, then there is audio processing in one of those chains. I think you mean *any*. Are you including RIAA equalisation as processing? Because if you don't apply the RIAA curve or something similar to the vinyl recording and playback, your results will be 'orrible, with a much reduced signal to noise ratio due to the way the playback works. Don't be silly. geoff |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
|
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 10/02/2017 10:42 a.m., geoff wrote:
On 10/02/2017 9:10 a.m., wrote: geoff wrote: "Can you drop the 'Direct-To-Disc CD' thingh you've imagined up and just call it an unprocessed digital recording. That is apart from whatever processing is in the signal chain for the vinyl version, presumably minimal if we are talking purists. " What issues do you have with unprocessed recordings, analog or digital? None - other than your current misnamed 'Direct-to-disc CD' hobby-horse, trying to equate the process with the process for Direct-To-Disc 'vinyl' . geoff FWIW I have an Direct Cut LP 'Blues Had A Baby' by Kevin Borich and Dutch Tilders. A great album. I transcribed it to CD and I cannot discern any difference between the two media versions (level-matching and all that). Prior to my final transcription (this time with no live speakers playing) I perceived a slight lack of 'solidity' in the bass despite my very solid turntable cabinet being totally isolated from the floor by separate piles through the lounge floor into the ground. But that might have been my imagination.... geoff |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 2/9/2017 4:52 PM, geoff wrote:
FWIW I have an Direct Cut LP 'Blues Had A Baby' by Kevin Borich and Dutch Tilders. A great album. I transcribed it to CD and I cannot discern any difference between the two media versions (level-matching and all that). Welcome to the world of digital audio. If your hardware is bad enough, you'll be able to hear a slight difference between playing the record and playing the CD made by recording that record. Of course the CD will never be better than your turntable/preamp is capable of playing the record - there's no such thing as "ripping" a phonograph record. But even the audio hardware built into most newer computers is remarkably good for the purpose of digitizing a record as long as you're careful that you don't have any clipping in the transfer process. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 8/02/2017 9:15 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
JackA wrote: It's pretty obvious, ** Famous last words from a fool .... mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio. ** That IS fascinating. Only in that he seems to neglect the limitations of the then audio recorders were even greater. I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings available to the public. At that time. Of course many developments in audio over the previous century could make similar claims. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible If only! But certainly less than many other LP's of course. and sound quality a revelation - mainly because there was no ****ing tape involved. Sheffield Labs were one of the main players and this LP was big hit for them: https://vinyl-west.de/catalog/49865/...es-version.jpg Yep, mainly because every audiophile and HiFi shop bought one just to prove record quality could be better than most of the crap available at the time. Still have a few Sheffield Labs LP's, plus a few direct cut and/or virgin vinyl, metal mastered, 45RPM, 12" disks. One of which was actually recorded digitally and was used by many HiFi shops for demo's before CD's were available. Would be considered *WELL below* state of the art these days though :-) Just as the most expensive turntable/cartridge combinations available would be, other than by nostalgia freaks of course! :-) Trevor. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 9/02/2017 3:31 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 09/02/2017 00:01, Phil Allison wrote: wrote: A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER - provided there is nothing between the microphones and the CD recorder. ** Do they even exist - I doubt it. All digital recording renders the idea moot. So a massive RED HERRING . I've done it for things like open mic or karaoke nights, so the performer can take a CD home with them. Usually now, the performer gets a USB stick with the original files on it, and a quick and dirty mix to play back at home on their portable player. So not actually direct to CD, but a CDR burned from a recorded digital file. Of course the difference is irrelevant to anything other than thekma who thinks "direct to CD" actually means anything in a digital age! :-) Trevor. |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 10/02/2017 1:50 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Note that if you wanted to, you could build the emphasis and de-emphasis mechanically into the cutting head and phono cartridge. It would have all manner of mechanical issues because physical materials are imperfect, but folks did it back in the early days. Of course, the RIAA curve was designed to approximate the natural slope of crystal/ceramic cartridges, using simple EQ networks. As often happens, things are chosen as much for compatibility reasons than for ultimate performance. Trevor. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 10/02/2017 6:07 AM, geoff wrote:
On 10/02/2017 12:21 AM, wrote: That CD obviously cannot be compared to a direct-to- disc vinyl cut. We need to compare direct-to-disc Vinyl (post RIAA of course) with direct-to-disc CD of the same session. Can you drop the 'Direct-To-Disc CD' thingh you've imagined up and just call it an unprocessed digital recording. That is apart from whatever processing is in the signal chain for the vinyl version, presumably minimal if we are talking purists. "Minimal" in the vinyl manufacturing chain is still *FAR* more than required for CD manufacture. Vinyl buffs simply choose to ignore it. Trevor. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 2/9/2017 10:32 PM, Trevor wrote:
So not actually direct to CD, but a CDR burned from a recorded digital file. Of course the difference is irrelevant to anything other than thekma who thinks "direct to CD" actually means anything in a digital age! :-) Actually, I think that he may have been describing a CD made with a stand-alone CD writer, not a recording to a computer disk drive and then burned to a CD - though really there should be no difference. Before people started toting laptop computers to live shows, we used to use a CD recorder with analog inputs that were fed from the PA console. I don't think it's unfair to call that "direct to CD." It's about as direct as "direct to disk" for lacquer. Here's one, still available from TASCAM: http://tascam.com/product/cd-rw901mkii/ -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 10/02/2017 8:52 AM, geoff wrote:
FWIW I have an Direct Cut LP 'Blues Had A Baby' by Kevin Borich and Dutch Tilders. A great album. I transcribed it to CD and I cannot discern any difference between the two media versions (level-matching and all that). Have been demo'ing that for decades by simply switching between any chosen turntable/disk output and the output of it fed to an A/D-D/A converter. None of those who claimed vinyl superiority were able to reliably tell the difference even when I was using converters not as good as those available today. Prior to my final transcription (this time with no live speakers playing) I perceived a slight lack of 'solidity' in the bass despite my very solid turntable cabinet being totally isolated from the floor by separate piles through the lounge floor into the ground. But that might have been my imagination.... Possibly, but I've always used headphones for vinyl transcription, I can't see why you'd even want to take the risk with having speakers playing at the same time? Trevor. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
Trevor wrote:
I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings available to the public. At that time. ** Redundant comment. Of course many developments in audio over the previous century could make similar claims. ** None of them could make the claim of being only beaten by the arrival of CDs. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible If only! ** Smartarse comment. Wot a ****wit TROLL. ..... Phil |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 10/02/2017 4:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
Trevor wrote: I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings available to the public. At that time. ** Redundant comment. Of course many developments in audio over the previous century could make similar claims. ** None of them could make the claim of being only beaten by the arrival of CDs. Redundant comment! The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible If only! ** Smartarse comment. Wot a ****wit TROLL. Off your meds again then Phil? Trevor. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
Actually, there was at least one commercial "direct to disc" CD issued, in the late 1980s or early 1990s. They got around the problem of the musician(s) having to play perfectly for 74 or so minutes by using a Yamaha MIDI Grand piano. They miked it simply, used very little processing, and converted to digital onsite; they then sent the digital signal via a digital connection to the CD manufacturing plant, which cut a glass master from it. The theory behind all this was that a recording cut that way would contain less jitter than a conventionally recorded CD. Which is horsefeathers, but someone spent a lot of money and time doing this. I have no idea what the music was or how the disc sounded.
Peace, The Other Paul (Stamler) |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
Trevor wrote:
I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings available to the public. At that time. ** Redundant comment. Of course many developments in audio over the previous century could make similar claims. ** None of them could make the claim of being only beaten by the arrival of CDs. Redundant comment! ** ******** - you flatly contradicts your crapology. The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible If only! ** Smartarse comment. Wot a ****wit TROLL. Off your meds again then Phil? ** Usual ****wit troll reply. Yawwnnnnnnnnnnn................. The "Trevor" austistic retard has been making a ASS of himself all over usenet and the PLANET for as long as the bull****ting prick has been alive. Lets all pray for his imminent, painful death. ..... Phil |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 07-02-2017 19:03, JackA wrote:
It's pretty obvious, mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio. You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks resulting in greater loudness... Does not relate to the topic in the topic header. But I did a lot of research on that issue in 1999 and posted it on the usenet. Jack Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 10/02/2017 03:32, Trevor wrote:
On 9/02/2017 3:31 PM, John Williamson wrote: On 09/02/2017 00:01, Phil Allison wrote: wrote: A direct cut CD is *capable* of sounding even BETTER - provided there is nothing between the microphones and the CD recorder. ** Do they even exist - I doubt it. All digital recording renders the idea moot. So a massive RED HERRING . I've done it for things like open mic or karaoke nights, so the performer can take a CD home with them. Usually now, the performer gets a USB stick with the original files on it, and a quick and dirty mix to play back at home on their portable player. So not actually direct to CD, but a CDR burned from a recorded digital file. Of course the difference is irrelevant to anything other than thekma who thinks "direct to CD" actually means anything in a digital age! :-) The CD they took home was burned to CD-R on the CD drive in the computer in real time during the performance, using the FOH feed as a source. I suppose if you want to be pedantic, it's not made using a CD recorder and a pair of microphones near the front row, but that's the only way it could get to be more direct. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 10/02/2017 4:54 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/9/2017 10:32 PM, Trevor wrote: So not actually direct to CD, but a CDR burned from a recorded digital file. Of course the difference is irrelevant to anything other than thekma who thinks "direct to CD" actually means anything in a digital age! :-) Actually, I think that he may have been describing a CD made with a stand-alone CD writer, not a recording to a computer disk drive and then burned to a CD - though really there should be no difference. Before people started toting laptop computers to live shows, we used to use a CD recorder with analog inputs that were fed from the PA console. I don't think it's unfair to call that "direct to CD." It's about as direct as "direct to disk" for lacquer. Here's one, still available from TASCAM: http://tascam.com/product/cd-rw901mkii/ A stand-alone CD recorder surely has some degree of internal buffering involved, so is actually not different to any other unprocessed digital recording however many generations old, stored, moved, delayed, uploaded, downloaded, whatever, where the data remains 100% identical. Maybe he meant the process of playing live a whole CD-worth of music in one take ? But that is a musical performance issue, rather than an achievable sound-quality issue. geoff |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 2/10/2017 4:25 AM, John Williamson wrote:
The CD they took home was burned to CD-R on the CD drive in the computer in real time during the performance, using the FOH feed as a source. I'd never trust a computer to do that reliably, but then I have nothing but old and cranky computers. I like dedicated hardware for recording, and I still much prefer using my Mackie hard disk recorder for sessions than using a computer. It's a computer at heart, of course, but it doesn't get "upgrades" that make it crash, and it has big buttons on it so I don't have to find a little button with a mouse in order to arm a track or start rolling. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
Mike Rivers wrote: "
Actually, I think that he may have been describing a CD made with a stand-alone CD writer, not a recording to a computer disk drive and then burned to a CD - though really there should be no difference. Before people started toting laptop computers to live shows, we used to use a CD recorder with analog inputs that were fed from the PA console. I don't think it's unfair to call that "direct to CD." It's about as direct as "direct to disk" for lacquer" THANK YOU! Finally! Not all that difficult to understand. That is what I do every Sunday in church: Yamaha outs to a Tascam CD recorder. As long as proper gain principles are applied through the board, and keep an eye on the Tascam meters, one can capture a good recording of worship and sermons. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
Trevor wrote: "Have been demo'ing that for decades by simply switching between any
chosen turntable/disk output and the output of it fed to an A/D-D/A converter. None of those who claimed vinyl superiority were able to reliably tell the difference even when I was using converters not as good as those available today. " Hmmmm... You, geoff, and I agree on a lot more than we may think! Only if we could impart what you said in simple terms to the ignorant "VINYL SOUNDS BETTER THAN CD" public! When the CD version gets the heavy over-processing, squashed to death, of course the vinyl version sound better than THAT! sheez.. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 2/10/2017 7:49 AM, wrote:
Only if we could impart what you said in simple terms to the ignorant "VINYL SOUNDS BETTER THAN CD" public! When the CD version gets the heavy over-processing, squashed to death, of course the vinyl version sound better than THAT! But . . . but . . . but . . This isn't a difference between CD and vinyl technology. It's a difference between decisions, other than the choice of the medium of publication, that are made by people, not electrons or light beams. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
In article , Trevor wrote:
On 10/02/2017 1:50 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: Note that if you wanted to, you could build the emphasis and de-emphasis mechanically into the cutting head and phono cartridge. It would have all manner of mechanical issues because physical materials are imperfect, but folks did it back in the early days. Of course, the RIAA curve was designed to approximate the natural slope of crystal/ceramic cartridges, using simple EQ networks. As often happens, things are chosen as much for compatibility reasons than for ultimate performance. Sort of, but not exactly. The idea is that you want constant displacement (like with a piezo element) at low frequencies but you want constant velocity (like with an electromagnetic transducer) at high frequencies. On playback, you can deal with this using a constant displacement piezo transducer, combined with high frequency rolloff from an RC network. It's not _just_ the natural slope of the cartridge, although that's one big part of it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/10/2017 7:49 AM, wrote: Only if we could impart what you said in simple terms to the ignorant "VINYL SOUNDS BETTER THAN CD" public! When the CD version gets the heavy over-processing, squashed to death, of course the vinyl version sound better than THAT! But . . . but . . . but . . This isn't a difference between CD and vinyl technology. It's a difference between decisions, other than the choice of the medium of publication, that are made by people, not electrons or light beams. Yes, but unfortunately it's the only thing thekmanrocks can talk about, so every thread he gets involved with eventually comes back to it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
Mike Rivers wrote: "But . . . but . . . but . . This isn't a difference between CD and
vinyl technology. It's a difference between decisions, other than the choice of the medium of publication, that are made by people, not electrons or light beams" I keep repeating myself: I KNOW THAT. 90% of the general music-consuming public doesn't! That's been my point since about 15-20 replies ago. |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:33:59 AM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
JackA wrote: One of the worst factors in recorded music is human. Some have the knowledge what sounds impressive, other don't. I'm sure 35mm film audio rivals direct to disc. But since so few actually appreciated, nor did they care paying extra cost, both died quickly. ** Direct to Disc recordings cost less to make than ones using tape machines - and they cost no more to produce copies of. Wot a crock of ****. I see, YOU people claim better sound quality (disc), I claim people don't really care for HQ sound, yet you claim it's less expensive to produce direct to disc. But, you have absolutely little control what is recorded, such as a sneeze that can be removed from tape, but the ENTIRE session has to be rerecorded with disc. How much do session musicians make per hour? How about that entire orchestra? Come on Phil. Jack .... Phil |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:49:03 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Trevor wrote: "Have been demo'ing that for decades by simply switching between any chosen turntable/disk output and the output of it fed to an A/D-D/A converter. None of those who claimed vinyl superiority were able to reliably tell the difference even when I was using converters not as good as those available today. " Hmmmm... You, geoff, and I agree on a lot more than we may think! Only if we could impart what you said in simple terms to the ignorant "VINYL SOUNDS BETTER THAN CD" public! When the CD version gets the heavy over-processing, squashed to death, of course the vinyl version sound better than THAT! sheez.. It DEPENDS on the era of music. Later material, say year 2000+, may be heavily processed. But, I have yet to hear Frank Sinatra heavily processed. See, listen, there is no "proper" way to master music, so you get what you get. Jack |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 1:03:15 PM UTC-5, JackA wrote:
It's pretty obvious, mechanical apparatus that had to "cut" and "play" vinyl records was not capable of reproducing the large amplitude peaks of recorded audio. You might say they naturally trimmed the peaks resulting in greater loudness... From a 2010 CD, but digitally enhanced, but no peak trimming or brick-walling, save that for the amateur Remasterers... http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps.../keemosabe.mp3 Jack I'd like to add, look at these studios where people master, tons of electronic gadgets to "enhance" sound. Jack |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
PStamler wrote:
Actually, there was at least one commercial "direct to disc" CD issued, in the late 1980s or early 1990s. They got around the problem of the musician(s) having to play perfectly for 74 or so minutes by using a Yamaha MIDI Grand piano. They miked it simply, used very little processing, and converted to digital onsite; they then sent the digital signal via a digital connection to the CD manufacturing plant, which cut a glass master from it. The theory behind all this was that a recording cut that way would contain less jitter than a conventionally recorded CD. Which is horsefeathers, but someone spent a lot of money and time doing this. I have no idea what the music was or how the disc sounded. Peace, The Other Paul (Stamler) I think I have an album that was done that way: Dick Hyman Plays Fats Waller on Reference Recordings. It was made on a Bosendorfer Reproducing Piano. The sound is good, though I doubt it has anything to do with the unusual way in which the album was made. The sound might be even better if I could just download a copy of the MIDI file and wedge that 9-foot Bosendorfer into my living room. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
JackAss wrote:
I'm sure 35mm film audio rivals direct to disc. But since so few actually appreciated, nor did they care paying extra cost, both died quickly. ** Direct to Disc recordings cost less to make than ones using tape machines - and they cost no more to produce copies of. Wot a crock of ****. I see, YOU people claim better sound quality (disc), I claim people don't really care for HQ sound, ** They are two entirely separate matters. Rest of your schizoid crapology best forgotten. ..... Phil |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:42:59 PM UTC-5, Tatonik wrote:
PStamler wrote: Actually, there was at least one commercial "direct to disc" CD issued, in the late 1980s or early 1990s. They got around the problem of the musician(s) having to play perfectly for 74 or so minutes by using a Yamaha MIDI Grand piano. They miked it simply, used very little processing, and converted to digital onsite; they then sent the digital signal via a digital connection to the CD manufacturing plant, which cut a glass master from it. The theory behind all this was that a recording cut that way would contain less jitter than a conventionally recorded CD. Which is horsefeathers, but someone spent a lot of money and time doing this. I have no idea what the music was or how the disc sounded. Peace, The Other Paul (Stamler) I think I have an album that was done that way: Dick Hyman Plays Fats Waller on Reference Recordings. It was made on a Bosendorfer Reproducing Piano. The sound is good, though I doubt it has anything to do with the unusual way in which the album was made. The sound might be even better if I could just download a copy of the MIDI file and wedge that 9-foot Bosendorfer into my living room. Wiki: Interesting: "According to Robert Auld of the Audio Engineering Society: "It was a notoriously difficult way to record (ed: Direct to Disc); the musicians and all concerned had to record a complete LP side without any serious musical or technical mistakes". Jack |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 5:40:31 PM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
JackAss wrote: I'm sure 35mm film audio rivals direct to disc. But since so few actually appreciated, nor did they care paying extra cost, both died quickly. ** Direct to Disc recordings cost less to make than ones using tape machines - and they cost no more to produce copies of. Wot a crock of ****. I see, YOU people claim better sound quality (disc), I claim people don't really care for HQ sound, ** They are two entirely separate matters. Rest of your schizoid crapology best forgotten. .... Phil Phil, you are just Pushin' Too Hard!! http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...hin2hard-1.mp3 Jack |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
|
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 10/02/2017 7:19 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
Trevor wrote: I expect you have never heard a "direct cut" LP from the 70s and early 80s. Made prior to CDs and were the highest quality recordings available to the public. At that time. ** Redundant comment. Of course many developments in audio over the previous century could make similar claims. ** None of them could make the claim of being only beaten by the arrival of CDs. Redundant comment! ** ******** - you flatly contradicts your crapology. Oh the ironing! :-) The dynamic range was huge, background noise negligible If only! ** Smartarse comment. Wot a ****wit TROLL. Off your meds again then Phil? ** Usual ****wit troll reply. Yawwnnnnnnnnnnn................. The "Trevor" austistic retard has been making a ASS of himself all over usenet and the PLANET for as long as the bull****ting prick has been alive. You have ALWAYS proven who is the biggest ASS on usenet Phil. Just too stupid to realise it is you. Lets all pray for his imminent, painful death. And being off your meds again seem to have forgotten there are now laws against making threats on the internet in Aus. Trevor. |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 10/02/2017 8:25 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 10/02/2017 03:32, Trevor wrote: On 9/02/2017 3:31 PM, John Williamson wrote: I've done it for things like open mic or karaoke nights, so the performer can take a CD home with them. Usually now, the performer gets a USB stick with the original files on it, and a quick and dirty mix to play back at home on their portable player. So not actually direct to CD, but a CDR burned from a recorded digital file. Of course the difference is irrelevant to anything other than thekma who thinks "direct to CD" actually means anything in a digital age! :-) The CD they took home was burned to CD-R on the CD drive in the computer in real time during the performance, using the FOH feed as a source. I suppose if you want to be pedantic, it's not made using a CD recorder and a pair of microphones near the front row, but that's the only way it could get to be more direct. OK, thought you burned to a normal CDR drive after the show like I used to do. No benefit in burning real time to a CDR drive, likely to cause more problems with buffer under-run glitches than burning the file later. And no benefit at all that I can see. Trevor. |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
No One Ever Did Any Research on Vinyl Records vs Audio CD
On 10/02/2017 11:08 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/10/2017 4:25 AM, John Williamson wrote: The CD they took home was burned to CD-R on the CD drive in the computer in real time during the performance, using the FOH feed as a source. I'd never trust a computer to do that reliably, but then I have nothing but old and cranky computers. I like dedicated hardware for recording, and I still much prefer using my Mackie hard disk recorder for sessions than using a computer. It's a computer at heart, of course, but it doesn't get "upgrades" that make it crash, and it has big buttons on it so I don't have to find a little button with a mouse in order to arm a track or start rolling. Each to their own. I've used a laptop and 2 cascaded USB interfaces to record 16 tracks at over 200 gigs with only one mishap. Entirely user error in that I forgot to hit record for the second set. :-( Outcome would have been no different whatever hardware I had. One day the computer will fail of course, but so can ANY hardware! You simply need two redundant systems for mission critical work. Trevor. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Updated Vinyl Catalog-30,555 Vinyl Records FS | Marketplace | |||
Canadian Vinyl Store-29,930 Vinyl Records FS | Marketplace | |||
29,157 Vinyl Records FS | Marketplace | |||
27,738 Vinyl Records FS | Pro Audio | |||
Digitizing vinyl records | Tech |