brjoon1021;624087 Wrote:
> "My belief is that there is too much (information - to be recorded)
> there for current digital parameters to capture as well as analog
> can."
>
> I did say analog, not "vinyl" here as some of you started talking about
> digitally ripping copies of your records. I was
brjoon1021;624087 Wrote:
> "My belief is that there is too much (information - to be recorded)
> there for current digital parameters to capture as well as analog
> can."
>
> I did say analog, not "vinyl" here as some of you started talking about
> digitally ripping copies of your records. I was
"My belief is that there is too much (information - to be recorded)
there for current digital parameters to capture as well as analog
can."
I did say analog, not "vinyl" here as some of you started talking about
digitally ripping copies of your records. I wasn't talking about that. I
was referrin
Curt962;624053 Wrote:
> It's difficult to shock me, but even I thought that post was wildly
> inappropriate. Shame.
Less said about it the better.
--
Phoenix
Media Room: VPI HW-19MK4,Cardas Heart Ruby, Fidelity Research Fr64s
tonearm;SB3, Tact RCS 2.0, Benchmark Dac1; Audible Illusions Mk
It's difficult to shock me, but even I thought that post was wildly
inappropriate. Shame.
--
Curt962
Transporter...TouchBoom..
Curt962's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=31949
View this t
magiccarpetride;623978 Wrote:
>
> What's more, you can make that doll even better than the real woman
> (i.e. make the breasts larger, the legs longer, the vagina tighter,
> etc.)
I will leave it theredont want to get the bug spray!
--
earwaxer9
System: modified Winsome Labs Mouse, modi
Phil Leigh;623855 Wrote:
> +1 - vinyl also adds noise, various distortions and compresses dynamic
> range (especially at the bass end).
>
> Anyone who has ripped vinyl using capable equipment knows that it is
> (as Robin said) easy to capture EVERYTHING about the vinyl, good and
> bad.
>
> Such
ctbarker32;623912 Wrote:
> A point that goes missing quite often in these discussions is that a lot
> of music simply is not available in any format except LP vinyl
Now you know why I converted much of my material to digital. If I
wanted a CD version or to have the music on my server, I had t
A point that goes missing quite often in these discussions is that a lot
of music simply is not available in any format except LP vinyl. I have
literally hundreds and approaching thousands of records that were never
issued on CD and still not available in digital form. These are not
marginal recor
brjoon1021;623821 Wrote:
> My belief is that there is too much there for current digital parameters
> to capture as well as analog can.
You're certainly entitled to your belief, but I've personally
transferred to digital over 2,000 LPs and open reel tapes in my
collection over the past 10 years.
On 07/04/11 12:33, Soulkeeper wrote:
>
> During the weekend, I listened to a test print of my band's upcoming 10"
> vinyl. It sounds ten times better than the digital master tracks. All
> the microphones and other inputs were plugged into a sound card and
> A/D-converted. From there, everything wa
I seem to remember that even Michael Fremer admits to playing people
cdrs he has made of different turntables and phono amps to show the
difference between them. How does this work if the vinyl magic is
removed? I appreciate that it is theoretically possible, but it seems
odd that the differences
During the weekend, I listened to a test print of my band's upcoming 10"
vinyl. It sounds ten times better than the digital master tracks. All
the microphones and other inputs were plugged into a sound card and
A/D-converted. From there, everything was done digitally. The record
manufacturers in P
Robin Bowes;623848 Wrote:
> On 07/04/11 04:29, brjoon1021 wrote:
> > My belief is that there is too much there for current digital
> > parameters to capture as well as analog can.
>
> Actually, that's not the case. The A/D process is relatively simple
> and
> easy to do right. Digital recordings
On 07/04/11 04:29, brjoon1021 wrote:
> My belief is that there is too much there for current digital
> parameters to capture as well as analog can.
Actually, that's not the case. The A/D process is relatively simple and
easy to do right. Digital recordings can easily capture everything that
analog
Eh it has been proven before that you can record a vinyl with a digital
rig and then nobody can tell the difference, it sounds just like the
vinyl ( - acoustical feedback ? so it can be slightly better ) so it is
an sound effect inherent in the format one may prefer that or not, but
it is not magi
"Double blind studies are total BS because a sh*tty MP3 of low quality
reproduces enough information to sound like a CD when you are listening
to popular music (especially) over a system you are unfamiliar with and
music you are unfamiliar with. I argued over and over with a guy who is
a big hydro
The biggest factor in how a particular sound is perceived, is governed
by the experience of "irritation" or "annoyance". Less irritation is
why tubes and vinyl are so popular. Our music enjoyment "mood" is
ruined by irritating aspects of the sound. I would be willing to bet
that a "flat" 20hz to 2
Some people simply prefer the sound of vinyl. It's PURELY a personal
preference - nothing more.
I used to prefer vinyl - but I don't anymore. My preference has
changed.
However, your claim that double-blind testing is BS is simply wrong.
DBT is the ONLY valid way of assessing things based on any
brjoon1021;623711 Wrote:
> Even if the analog digital question could not be adequately addressed,
> this familiar recording over a familiar system would put to death the
> Mp3 sounds just like the CD camp's arguments I would bet.
That's the point of science. We can test such things without relyi
I was advocating just that.
However, nobody has presented any data done just that way. At least
when I was embroiled in an argument with the MP3-is-just-as-the-CD
advocate nothing like that was referenced by him. The studies he
referred me to were clinical settings where the environment and the
brjoon1021;623698 Wrote:
> Knowing recordings in a stable controlled environment is key. Double
> blind studies are total BS because a sh*tty MP3 of low quality
> reproduces enough information to sound like a CD when you are listening
> to popular music (especially) over a system you are unfamili
I went to a local high end gear store just for this purpose several
years back. We listened to a mid-range analog front end and a probably
little better than midrange digital setup through Krell monoblocks and
Apogee speakers - yep, been a while ago, digital has probably improved
more since then t
On 03/04/11 18:09, darrenyeats wrote:
> So we did. Same track, via a £13.5k DAC (!) and the reel to reel. All
> of us preferred the reel to reel! The digital had spitty vocals and the
> drums were less catchy.
>
> Afterwards we found the reel to reel was a recording of the same
> digital file via
At a recent show we heard (amongst many other interesting things) a
single driver omni type speaker with tube amps playing from a reel to
reel machine. Funky, myself and my two companions liked it. But we are
audio geeks I suppose.
The guy mentioned that they preferred the reel to reel of the sam
That's what's so good about standards. There are so many variations of
them;)
--
Waldo Pepper
Waldo Pepper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=39029
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/sh
Phil Leigh;618593 Wrote:
> Decca was still using their own curve into the early 70's... and they
> weren't alone.
>
I'd like to see a reference for that. I know they were using their own
curve in the early "hi-fi" era, but I have Decca Lps from the late 50s
that are clearly marked "RIAA".
--
mlsstl;618592 Wrote:
> The RIAA curve has a 40 dB swing from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. Heavy bass
> needs a very wide groove, so the bass response is reduced up to 20 dB
> when cutting the record. Highs, which don't take up much groove width,
> are boosted up to 20 dB.
>
> During playback, this curve
Phil Leigh;618564 Wrote:
> I agree that digital has no such limitations - and sounds better for it
> IMO - but your explanation of RIAA EQ is way off... it's basically a
> severe curtailing of low frequencies at three turnover points to
> preserve the integrity of the cutting heads and make it ac
Waldo Pepper;618534 Wrote:
> A signal from a record player (and that's all they are) has to be
> filtered through an RIAA response pre-amp to account for the output
> voltage being down to the frequency picked off the record. This is the
> biggest source of non linearity as no analogue filter can
pski;610496 Wrote:
> In any case, the quality of vinyl depends on the production of the
> product and the quality of the cartridge.
>
> Cartridges were (and are) notorious for flavoring the sound. (From my
> experience, Grado makes excellent products at reasonable prices.
> AudioTechnica are go
Daverz;611440 Wrote:
> Hmmm, I tried ripping an Lp to a 24/96 file and my results weren't very
> good. The digital files seem to lose some presence and even some bass.
> Maybe my M-Audio Audiophile USB isn't cutting it anymore.
Digital will not lose any bass if the analogue circuits allow the b
duke43j;616155 Wrote:
>
> FYI Ive found this film clip of an AES workshop that debunks many of
> the audiophile myths. I think it puts a lot of things into perspective.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
Some "audiophiles" don't want myths debunked. To them it is a religion
and th
Archimago;615755 Wrote:
>
> 1. Digital easily beats vinyl (gotta be careful since obviously
> reel-to-reel is a different beast) for sound quality.
>
> ...
>
> 3. In the 16/44 vs. 24/88+ debate, I've done my own ABX'ing with FooBar
> over the last 2 years. As Phil already suggested, using th
Don,t forget that jacking up the treble is also a part of the loudness
race, raising lower treble region it can make things stand out on lover
volumes as we are not see sensitive to high frequencies. But play this
loud
And digital media makes this all to easy it has almost no limits in
this r
garym;615766 Wrote:
> I'm sorry. ;-)
LOL. Good catch :-)
I meant loud rock concerts. Jazz and classics I attend not
infrequently.
--
Archimago
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
Archimago;615755 Wrote:
> been to maybe a handful of loud concerts in my life
I'm sorry. ;-)
--
garym
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.c
Hi guys. I'm 38, been to maybe a handful of loud concerts in my life,
work in an office environment, and my audiologist says I have "very
good" acuity for my age.
Here's my conclusion after 25 years of audiophilia, visiting the local
hi-end stores in Canada and abroad (mainly to S.E. Asia). Alo
Phil Leigh;615077 Wrote:
> :-) - change your Filetype settings back to the default so that FLAC is
> streamed as FLAC, not wav...
>
> I promise it won't sound any different :-)
Good point. This will also ensure that both high def and regular def
files are played under the same conditions.
--
magiccarpetride;615049 Wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> I cannot play your 24_192.flac on my Touch. The message says that the
> format is unsupported.
>
> I hate to be such a pest, but is there a way to post the 24/96 version?
:-) - change your Filetype settings back to the default so that FLAC is
stream
magiccarpetride;615049 Wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> I cannot play your 24_192.flac on my Touch. The message says that the
> format is unsupported.
>
> I hate to be such a pest, but is there a way to post the 24/96 version?
That is probably because you have disabled flac in the server settings
and str
Phil Leigh;614737 Wrote:
> http://rapidshare.com/files/450471320/24_192.flac
>
> http://rapidshare.com/files/450468810/16441.flac
Hi Phil,
I cannot play your 24_192.flac on my Touch. The message says that the
format is unsupported.
I hate to be such a pest, but is there a way to post the 24/9
Mnyb;614954 Wrote:
> Thanks for you efforts i downloaded all 3 examples I copied each 3 times
> and made an fake album I can shuffle .
>
> I also found the That more modern 51 sec snippet of a more recent
> recording you uploaded, That female jazz singin ?
> Thanks for those too, I will also mak
Phil Leigh;614867 Wrote:
> Prompted by Wombat, I've included a slightly different version of the
> 16/44.1 resample... be interested to see if anyone can tell the
> difference
>
> http://rapidshare.com/files/450546117/1644100DNS.flac
Thanks for you efforts i downloaded all 3 examples I copied e
Phil Leigh;614737 Wrote:
> http://rapidshare.com/files/450471320/24_192.flac
>
> http://rapidshare.com/files/450468810/16441.flac
Prompted by Wombat, I've included a slightly different version of the
16/44.1 resample... be interested to see if anyone can tell the
difference
http://rapidshare.c
magiccarpetride;614710 Wrote:
> That is indeed a very intriguing finding, Phil. Is there a way for you
> to supply snippets of both samples (i.e. the 24/192 and the exact same
> sample dithered down to 16/44.1)?
>
> I'd love to be able to subject myself to the rigorous blind test, just
> to see
magiccarpetride;614733 Wrote:
> These were explained away with the fact that I was comparing apples to
> oranges. I wasn't aware of that at first, but later on came to learn
> that, indeed, the high definition master is different from the red book
> version. Naturally, one can expect that the dif
http://rapidshare.com/files/450471320/24_192.flac
http://rapidshare.com/files/450468810/16441.flac
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF
x-dacv3/x-10/x-psu(Audiocom
magiccarpetride;614733 Wrote:
>
> I've never been in a situation where I could compare exact same
> masters, one in high definition, the other one in red book format. I'd
> love to be given a chance to have a go at that comparative listening.
Lets see what you find out then!
This Hires versus
Wombat;614716 Wrote:
> What about using samples you were referring to in your own legendary
> thread?
>
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82870
>
These were explained away with the fact that I was comparing apples to
oranges. I wasn't aware of that at first, but later on came to
magiccarpetride;614710 Wrote:
> That is indeed a very intriguing finding, Phil. Is there a way for you
> to supply snippets of both samples (i.e. the 24/192 and the exact same
> sample dithered down to 16/44.1)?
>
> I'd love to be able to subject myself to the rigorous blind test, just
> to see
magiccarpetride;614710 Wrote:
> That is indeed a very intriguing finding, Phil. Is there a way for you
> to supply snippets of both samples (i.e. the 24/192 and the exact same
> sample dithered down to 16/44.1)?
>
> I'd love to be able to subject myself to the rigorous blind test, just
> to see
Phil Leigh;614701 Wrote:
> Don't really want to get into the main debate here, except to say that
> the issues with digital are not down to sampling rate (or indeed
> bit-depth).
>
> This is readily proven by the fact that most (99%?) of people cannot
> tell the difference between playback of a
ralphpnj;614702 Wrote:
> But but analog sounds so good.
>
> Only joking since your points are well taken. As I stated digital is
> the present and the future. I'm sure that the sound of digital will
> continue to improve in spite of the iTunes store.
Digital already sounds glorious and, if it ca
Don't really want to get into the main debate here, except to say that
the issues with digital are not down to sampling rate (or indeed
bit-depth).
This is readily proven by the fact that most (99%?) of people cannot
tell the difference between playback of a 24/192 file and playback of
the same f
Pneumonic;614697 Wrote:
> Sorry for assuming as I did, Ralph.
>
> My pointing out noise and hiss is but one small part of the rather un
> hi-fi nature of vinyl.
>
> Add the following "copious amounts" and "oodles" of distortions and
> noises and hiss to the equation, further degrading vinyl as
ralphpnj;614692 Wrote:
> The second paragraph above states some useful numbers (70dB, 30dB)
> whereas the previous paragraph uses terms like "copious amounts" and
> "oodles", which whether true or not, can not be argued or, for that
> matter, defended. In addition to all this a high signal to noi
ralphpnj;614568 Wrote:
> As per my previous post, I'm also a little confused as to what djs_6978
> is talking about. My guess is that he just wants to make fun of
> audiophiles based on the stereotype of an audiophile only listening
> great sounding but musically weak recordings. If one uses The
Pneumonic;614688 Wrote:
> Now, now, Ralph. No need to get your knickers in a knot.
Ah, so that's why I been having trouble sitting comfortably.
Pneumonic;614688 Wrote:
> But, you'll not be able to convince me that "analog" doesn't introduce
> copious amounts of noise/hiss and distortions that
ralphpnj;614681 Wrote:
> Your willingness to exaggerate analog's flaws in order to trumpet the
> virtues of digital are boundless. While it is true that badly recorded
> analog can have all the things you mentioned, a well recorded analog
> master tape is the equal of a well recorded digital mast
Pneumonic;614676 Wrote:
> And herein lies the issue that many people have with vinyl, and indeed
> analog, in general . the medium itself inherently adds copious
> amounts of noise/hiss and distortions which drown out the signal being
> reproduced, burying much of the music under said noise/h
adamdea;614636 Wrote:
> 6 I have read on many many occasions comments that cd issues and
> sometimes subsequent remastering reveal details previously *obscured*
> by the vinyl and are generally more pleasing.
And herein lies the issue that many people have with vinyl, and indeed
analog, in gener
adamdea;614636 Wrote:
> If I could be forgiven for returning to topic...
> I have a couple of observations.
> 1. I have noticed that classical music reviewers such as the Gramophone
> reviewers and the editors of the Penguin Guide often make comments on
> the relative merits different issues or m
If I could be forgiven for returning to topic...
I have a couple of observations.
1. I have noticed that classical music reviewers such as the Gramophone
reviewers and the editors of the Penguin Guide often make comments on
the relative merits different issues or masterings of the same
recording,
magiccarpetride;614563 Wrote:
> OK, I'll be honest with you -- I have no idea what you're talking about
> here. When did I ever mention Linn recordings, or A1, premium grade?
As per my previous post, I'm also a little confused as to what djs_6978
is talking about. My guess is that he just wants
djs_6978;614534 Wrote:
> Ok, first what's the point of limiting your listening to audio that is
> only A1, premium grade, turn the bits up to 11 kind of stuff? If all
> you listen to are Linn recordings because of the quality of the
> recordings, aren't you limiting yourself and your music/audio
djs_6978;614534 Wrote:
> Ok, first what's the point of limiting your listening to audio that is
> only A1, premium grade, turn the bits up to 11 kind of stuff? If all
> you listen to are Linn recordings because of the quality of the
> recordings, aren't you limiting yourself and your music/audio
Robin Bowes;614515 Wrote:
> On 28/02/11 19:59, magiccarpetride wrote:
> >
> > The issue with many live performances is also are we keen on
> > reproducing the sound that's coming out of the PA (assuming that it
> is
> > amplified performance), or are we interested in reproducing the
> sound
> >
magiccarpetride;614460 Wrote:
> Same holds for audio reproduction. The cheapo shitty transistor radio
> playing your favorite song would be equivalent to viewing a painting as
> a Xerox copy. Playing that song on a regular stereo would be equivalent
> to viewing the painting in a book of reproduc
ralphpnj;614523 Wrote:
> ...It's the people who fool themselves into thinking everything is black
> and white in world filled with colors and shades of gray that are the
> real "fools".
well said.
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what yo
magiccarpetride;614510 Wrote:
> Good point. I stand corrected. I was mostly referring to people who
> claim that if you're into high quality audio system, you obviously
> don't care about music, you only care about the equipment/gear/kit.
> Which would also be an overarching statement.
>
> In al
On 28/02/11 19:59, magiccarpetride wrote:
>
> The issue with many live performances is also are we keen on
> reproducing the sound that's coming out of the PA (assuming that it is
> amplified performance), or are we interested in reproducing the sound
> as it is coming out of the instruments thems
magiccarpetride;614510 Wrote:
>
> The issue with many live performances is also are we keen on
> reproducing the sound that's coming out of the PA (assuming that it is
> amplified performance), or are we interested in reproducing the sound
> as it is coming out of the instruments themselves? For
ralphpnj;614498 Wrote:
> A lot...
Already at Rembrandts time and long beofre that reproduction of
paintings existied. For intance art forgery is not a new phenomen.
What in the word reproduction that sp hard to grasp?
--
johann
ralphpnj;614498 Wrote:
> Just a bit of an overreaching statement - these people may really care
> about music but may find that effort involved in obtaining a high
> quality audio system is just not worth the trouble or money. The loss
> is theirs not mine and so I try not to judge them too harsh
magiccarpetride;614489 Wrote:
> So anyone who is belittling the importance of having a good audio system
> doesn't seem to really care about the music, despite the claims to the
> contrary.
Just a bit of an overreaching statement - these people may really care
about music but may find that effor
ralphpnj;614486 Wrote:
> No since, if I understand Mr. MC Ride correctly, the equivalent to live
> music would looking at the real living Rembrandt, not a painting of
> Rembrandt. Since Rembrandt is long dead all we have left are his many
> self portraits which, no matter how well they may have b
ralphpnj;614486 Wrote:
> No since, if I understand Mr. MC Ride correctly, the equivalent to live
> music would looking at the real living Rembrandt, not a painting of
> Rembrandt. Since Rembrandt is long dead all we have left are his many
> self portraits which, no matter how well they may have b
johann;614470 Wrote:
> So you only liste to live music?
No since, if I understand Mr. MC Ride correctly, the equivalent to live
music would looking at the real living Rembrandt, not a painting of
Rembrandt. Since Rembrandt is long dead all we have left are his many
self portraits which, no matte
Phil Leigh;614474 Wrote:
> ... in certain venues...
... with certain sound engineers...
--
johann
johann's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10177
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/sh
johann;614470 Wrote:
> So you only liste to live music?
... in certain venues...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF
x-dacv3/x-10/x-psu(Audiocom full mods) - Lin
magiccarpetride;614460 Wrote:
> snip
> 4. You can obtain the original canvas and view it under ideal lighting
> conditions
> snip...
>
>
> I don't know about you, but I'm personally only interested in scenario
> #4 (i.e. listening to the real deal). I don't care about experiencing
> music unde
djs_6978;614445 Wrote:
> screw your $50k rigs, give me a transistor radio and some Hank Williams.
> ;)
>
> Seriously though, multi-thousand dollar vinyl or digital rigs aren't
> worth a crap if you aren't enjoying the music coming from the speakers.
> As far as this argument goes, it's 1a and 1b
djs_6978;614445 Wrote:
> screw your $50k rigs, give me a transistor radio and some Hank Williams.
> ;)
>
> Seriously though, multi-thousand dollar vinyl or digital rigs aren't
> worth a crap if you aren't enjoying the music coming from the speakers.
> As far as this argument goes, it's 1a and 1b
screw your $50k rigs, give me a transistor radio and some Hank Williams.
;)
Seriously though, multi-thousand dollar vinyl or digital rigs aren't
worth a crap if you aren't enjoying the music coming from the speakers.
As far as this argument goes, it's 1a and 1b. Some sources I have only
digital,
pski;613820 Wrote:
> I had this Sony cassette deck (TC-fx1010) which featured continuous bias
> adjustment. With Maxell Metal tapes, playback was almost identical to
> CD. This is also true of my current Sony ES deck. The 1010 was fully
> solenoid control and it's POST earned it the nickname "Cit
On 25/02/11 22:39, pski wrote:
> playback was almost identical to CD.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
--
"Feed that ego and you starve the soul" - Colonel J.D. Wilkes
http://www.theshackshakers.com/
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevi
Mnyb;613626 Wrote:
> Yep reel to reel tape was better than vinyl ( quite obvius as the
> masters tapes themselfes where on this format)
> But no comercially viable way off massproducing these very ever lauched
> ? So more of less a format for the recording enthusiast.
>
> With a good tape deck y
Mnyb;613626 Wrote:
> Yep reel to reel tape was better than vinyl ( quite obvius as the
> masters tapes themselfes where on this format)
> But no comercially viable way off massproducing these very ever lauched
> ? So more of less a format for the recording enthusiast.
>
> With a good tape deck y
Yep reel to reel tape was better than vinyl ( quite obvius as the
masters tapes themselfes where on this format)
But no comercially viable way off massproducing these very ever lauched
? So more of less a format for the recording enthusiast.
With a good tape deck you could do half decent recordin
earwaxer9;613612 Wrote:
> I can remember a recording to reel to reel tape sounding very good! Mid
> 70's system. A simple home made LP to tape recording. A friend in
> college had the system. Cant remember the brand of the dec. I was
> skeptical at first to tape transfers. I really didnt want to
earwaxer9;613612 Wrote:
> I can remember a recording to reel to reel tape sounding very good! Mid
> 70's system. A simple home made LP to tape recording. A friend in
> college had the system. Cant remember the brand of the dec. I was
> skeptical at first to tape transfers. I really didnt want to
magiccarpetride;612818 Wrote:
> Believe it or not, I've seen a magazine purporting the comeback of the
> cassette!
I can remember a recording to reel to reel tape sounding very good! Mid
70's system. A simple home made LP to tape recording. A friend in
college had the system. Cant remember the b
Phil Leigh;613078 Wrote:
> Thing is, it doesn't actually cost much to create and publish an
> excellent recording these days...
>
> You have to really TRY to make a bad recording!
I got an excellent Jeff Beck concert on usenet that was recorded live
with good microphones and a digital deck the
Btw "world music" can sound fantastic it is very basic production thus
back to sound of the instrument's and players .
Where i try to get why coldplay is so fantastic they have that gritty
thin production that bore me to tears... how can they record this way ?
Some songs have potential but you ca
darrenyeats;613111 Wrote:
> They're trying really hard a lot of the time then. LOL.
Yes they are and this cost more than doing a hasty half witted jobb
that would not have been perfect but surely better than the loudness
war .
It's not just the final compression plugin , but the whole aesthetic
Phil Leigh;613078 Wrote:
> Thing is, it doesn't actually cost much to create and publish an
> excellent recording these days...
>
> You have to really TRY to make a bad recording!
They're trying really hard a lot of the time then. LOL.
--
darrenyeats
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listm
Phil Leigh;613078 Wrote:
> Thing is, it doesn't actually cost much to create and publish an
> excellent recording these days...
>
> You have to really TRY to make a bad recording!
You've got a point there, Phil. You're right, rules of the game have
indeed changed, and for the better. Why did I
magiccarpetride;613074 Wrote:
> I join you in that assessment. It's almost like publishing houses/labels
> have two choices these days:
>
> 1. Either sign good artists, pay them decent compensation, and thus
> blow the entire budget. Then proceed with doing a cheap, hasty and
> shitty job record
darrenyeats;612969 Wrote:
> In contrast, a lot of well recorded material is drivel to me.
I join you in that assessment. It's almost like publishing
houses/labels have two choices these days:
1. Either sign good artists, pay them decent compensation, and thus
blow the entire budget. Then procee
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
