Re: MD: md-l-digest V2 #853
For that matter it may be possible to restore the complete sound of Bach playing the organ. But why make it more difficult that it has to be. I somehow suspect that there are not alot of recordings extant of dear Johann playing the organ. More's the pity. In the majority of cases, I cannot tell the difference between CD and the ATRAC on my MZ-R90. However, I did a recording with it of some acoustic guitar, where I didn't set the levels properly, and I can hear a difference between the ATRAC and the DAT version. I have found that recording acoustic guitar is one of MDs weak points. The sound is drier...I think because overtones are being thrown out. These overtones are an important part of the music. I also notice a distinct decrease in quality when I start to process the ATRAC stuff with EQ or reverb or dynamic compression, and the like. Why would you want to do that? I would want a recording to sound the way it was originally done. The only reason for my first post on this subject was the statement that MD is High Quality recording. I just don't think so. People today are so spoiled. Go back 15 years to the era of LPs and cassettes. Minidisc sure sounds like high quality to those of us who are old enough to have been music lovers in the pre-digital age. By the way, many of my favorite recordings never saw the light of day in the digital age. The music only exists on LP (or in some cases cassettes). The important thing is the music...not the technology! James __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: md-l-digest V2 #853
People today are so spoiled. Go back 15 years to the era of LPs and cassettes. Minidisc sure sounds like high quality to those of us who are old enough to have been music lovers in the pre-digital age. By the way, many of my favorite recordings never saw the light of day in the digital age. The music only exists on LP (or in some cases cassettes). The important thing is the music...not the technology! ... Then why do we have this forum?? :) I think it's all subjective. Cassettes are low-end, because of their low signal-to-noise ratios (I think; I'm not an expert in this sort of thing), but they were high end once. So were vinyl records and Victorolas. I don't think it's a question of being spoiled versus humble either. Though I understand what you're saying, I don't think I should be called 'spoiled' just because I want to listen to a good-quality recording of the music I like, and was never around when vinyl records were the 'big thing'. So far, I think this thread has defined 2 axioms: 1) Lossless compression formats are always technically superior to lossy formats. 2) Compromises in quality are perfectly acceptable, in accordance with certain external factors (what is being recorded, where it's being used, how much it costs, etc...) ...with more to come, I'm sure... - Anthony Lalande - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: md-l-digest V2 #853
James Jarvie wrote: For that matter it may be possible to restore the complete sound of Bach playing the organ. But why make it more difficult that it has to be. I somehow suspect that there are not alot of recordings extant of dear Johann playing the organ. More's the pity. Of course there aren't. I was referring to an imaginary technology that could enable one to trace back in time whatever resonances were created by Bach, and then reconstruct the performance. Pure sci-fi, but not impossible, I think. I also notice a distinct decrease in quality when I start to process the ATRAC stuff with EQ or reverb or dynamic compression, and the like. Why would you want to do that? I would want a recording to sound the way it was originally done. See example in previous post of recording acoustic guitar. I don't just use my MD for listening to my CDs or MP3s during my commute. I record lots of other things which require mixing, sweetening and mastering. People today are so spoiled. Go back 15 years to the era of LPs and cassettes. Minidisc sure sounds like high quality to those of us who are old enough to have been music lovers in the pre-digital age. By the way, many of my favorite recordings never saw the light of day in the digital age. The music only exists on LP (or in some cases cassettes). The important thing is the music...not the technology! I agree with the last sentence. (Incidentally, I cut my teeth on the old Ampex 1/2 inch 4 tracks, when sync meant pushing play at the same time, and if one deck got behind, you gently press on the reel of the other deck to slow it down. Those were the days!) The important thing is the music. And some of my favorite recordings are only on LP as well, and some other of my favorites were recorded on an old Sony Pressman style cassette recorder. The quality of the recording in no way diminishes my enjoyment of the performance, but I would enjoy the recordings even more, if they were of better quality. What I'm really saying is, think about the future. If you are truly concerned about capturing an acoustic event to save it for future use, then it only makes sense to use the highest quality technology available. Obviously that can't happen on every occasion, since there are numerous tradeoffs that have to be made, which is why I still use my MD to record certain things. MD can't be beat in some areas, so in that sense it is the best technology available for the situation. But there in the back of my mind is the thought that I'm short-changing the recording. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: md-l-digest V2 #853
With all due respect, don't you think this paragraph has discredited your entire post? Wouldn't it be easier to bring back Bach from the dead? Of course there aren't. I was referring to an imaginary technology that could enable one to trace back in time whatever resonances were created by Bach, and then reconstruct the performance. Pure sci-fi, but not impossible, I think. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: md-l-digest V2 #853
With all due respect, don't you think this paragraph has discredited your entire post? Wouldn't it be easier to bring back Bach from the dead? Of course there aren't. I was referring to an imaginary technology that could enable one to trace back in time whatever resonances were created by Bach, and then reconstruct the performance. Pure sci-fi, but not impossible, I think. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: md-l-digest V2 #853
With all due respect, don't you think this paragraph has discredited your entire post? Wouldn't it be easier to bring back Bach from the dead? Of course there aren't. I was referring to an imaginary technology that could enable one to trace back in time whatever resonances were created by Bach, and then reconstruct the performance. Pure sci-fi, but not impossible, I think. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: md-l-digest V2 #853
"Francisco J. Huerta" wrote: With all due respect, don't you think this paragraph has discredited your entire post? Wouldn't it be easier to bring back Bach from the dead? Having done neither, I don't know which one would be easier. But I did say that it was "pure sci-fi" the "fi" meaning fiction. I take fiction to mean "not true." I was merely presenting a hypothetical situation. Sure I said it could be possible, but lots of things could be possible. And as Arthur C. Clarke says "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." As for discrediting my entire post, I don't think that there is any one statement I could make that would discredit my ENTIRE post. Each statement stands or falls on its own merit and/or context. Now if I had said that I had a letter from George Washington (of First President of the United States fame, for those of you living in Utah) and said that it was written while he was taking the train from Baltimore to Ohio, that just might discredit my entire post. But a throwaway line about a speculative future technology that I specifically say is sci-fi, doesn't discredit anything. Sorry for the lack of MD content. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
