Machines sing them into tune. AND THEN
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?
-- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs 919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.comyates@digitalsignallabs.com
Wow, it's been ages since I heard that. I loved that album, and saw Stewart live in the late 70s at Queens College.
Kirk
-- Kirkville -- http://www.mcelhearn.com Writings about more than just Macs Take Control of iTunes 10: The FAQ: http://www.mcelhearn.com/itunes
Or ones that were recorded perfectly digitally - like Mark Knopfler's "Sailing To Philadelphia".
It can be done.
Gladys.
Digital multitrack recording was also used for it's improved signal to noise ratio, lack of wow and flutter, lack of hiss buildup, ability to play the tape over and over without losing highs as you overdubbed other tracks, ability to get off the tape what you put on it (subject to the vagaries of early converters.), although that's a mixed bag because the euphonic compression that tape has is something we now miss as is head bump artifacts on the low end, etc.
Editing was also seen as potentially easier, as you could calculate crossfades and create edit decision lists that would allow you to edit in ways that a razor blade can't. Of course, a good engineer with a blade could do some awesome shit. I worked at it a lot and got good at it, but not like some of the masters I saw at work. It's all pretty easy on a computer now, so it's largely a lost skill.
Punching in and out was also something that some saw as an improvement, what with the ability to set very precise ins and outs which included crossfades. However, I miss the days that my clients called my Mike Tyson due to my ability to quickly and accurately punch in and out, sometimes even punching parts of words. Ah, the good old days, I don't miss them a bit! Pro Tools, Logic, etc. rock!
On 2/27/2011 9:10 AM Randy Yates spake thus:
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
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.
No argument from me!
Trevor.
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.
Trevor expounded in news:4d6883c8$0$29364$ snipped-for-privacy@news.optusnet.com.au:
Definitely during commercials!!
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
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.
Which of course has absolutely *nothing* to do with the pro's and cons of vinyl Vs CD, only the mastering choices.
Trevor.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-- ****************************************************************** * KSI@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. * * Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. * ******************************************************************
You do not have an A/V Receiver?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Right, or necessarily any worse.
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!
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.
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.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.