Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 45678 38> |
| Author | |||||||||
Surrealist 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: October 12 2012 Location: Squonk Status: Offline Points: 232 |
 Posted: October 13 2012 at 12:54 |
||||||||
|
I don't buy the analog distortion argument for vinyl, or tape saturation anymore than I would buy the argument that the brass composition of a saxophone is distorting the air coming out of the players lungs. It is what it is.. and everything in the world is actually based upon distortion to varying degrees. Even typing text here is a distortion of my intentions because you can't hear the deflection of my voice. Anyone who speaks an Asian language will know what I am talking about.
Vinyl sounds more natural. Why? Because we are analog creatures who hear things in sound waves. If you convert analog sound waves into digital files, you have to then re convert those digital files back to analog. It simply cannot come out sounding the same. When you sample anything, you are not getting the whole picture. You are getting a sampling. It's incomplete, and regardless of anyone's scientific explanations, the human ear and BODY can hear and FEEL the difference. If we couldn't, these endless arguments would cease to exist. The recording of music and playback or replication is a lot more art than it is science. I always have a laugh when I go out to CES and listen to all the science talk in the super high end audiophile listening rooms. I couldn't care less what they say if what is hitting my ears out of the speakers doesn't sound natural. Warmth is simply natural sounding. While one can argue that digital manipulation of sound files and the endless possibilities of doing so combining various plugins and outboard effects is surely a respectable and viable art form in itself... I don't think the old way of thinking should be dismissed either where the purpose of recording was simply to accurately capture sound blending in a room with it's natural acoustic properties. There is a wisdom to the old way of focusing on the sound dynamics of a room or concert hall and using more ambient miking techniques. When you go to the symphony, you don't typically see a microphone two inches from every instrument. The idea is to allow sound to blend, to develop a bit. The art is in the blending.. like a great chef preparing a meal. They don't hand you a menu describing the molecular structure of the ingredients and 800 pages of scientific analysis in an attempt to prove to you that this meal will taste fantastic. I like to use "Tales from Topographic Oceans" as an example. It's a great example because there is a lot going on sonically on that album. However, it is certainly not the best high fidelity recorded album. You don't have the separation of instruments and clarity that you would hear on Steely Dan "Asia". But because of this... you have a lot more of a grainy sound hitting your ears that creates more of a sonic mystery. It makes your ears want to go down into the music more than if everything were to be spoon fed with perfect clarity. Eddie O did a hell of a job blending all that stuff together into something very interesting. You'll kill the experience if you analyze it scientifically and could argue how poorly it was produced... but the reality is that it stands to this day as one of the greatest accomplishments of the prog genre. It was interesting to read about Igor's take on performing it and getting inside the music with those guys and how he described the mystery of it all going away once he saw what everyone was actually doing. It supports the whole being greater than the parts theory. From a production standpoint, progressive rock required more compression and careful mixing in the studio, because you can only fit so many marbles in the jar. You have a lot of instruments competing for those mid range frequencies. Treble bass frequencies, guitar, punchy kick drums and snares and of course layers of keys... Moogs, Arps, Hammonds and so forth. Hackett in Genesis and Howe in yes had tough roles to play. Emerson didn't have a lot of guitar to compete with in ELP. When I think of a guitarist who wanted the whole dynamic range from low to high I think of Robin Trower and how he placed himself between just a drum kit and a deep sounding Fender Bass rig. The old jazz cats from the acoustic era or pre Miles electric jazz let the instruments do the mix for them. A light sounding drum kit, a piano, a deep upright bass, and a few horns blending together is not hard to mix. When the electric guitar came into that, and of course the Hammond like Wes Montgomery and Jimmy Smith did.. it started getting more complicated. Miles, "Bitches Brew" and "In a Silent Way" that was really when Prog started to happen. The recording techniques needed more attention to keep everyone happy so more and more multitracking, two inch tape machines and outboard compression in the mixing room. But there is a downside and a compromise that absolutely has to happen. So the point here getting back on topic is that the listening experience NEEDS to be better particularly in progressive rock because of the complexity of both the music and production values. And the more detailed experience that a proper vinyl set up can offer is the front row ticket to really get inside this music. |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 17510 |
Posted: October 13 2012 at 13:48 |
||||||||
THAT is a prefderence, not a reality! Let's do this ... get a band. Now you setup their sound and such. Now you have two sets of recording equipment ... a really nice Teac over there and the digital stuff over here. IF, either recording makes things better, it tells you that there were changes on the sound that interfered with the quality of the sound ITSELF ... and had absolutely NOTHING to do with the original. This is a very important consideration, but you are selecting a preference that is not the real thing ... but has become what the "rock" music business has done to make you think that it is more important musically ... than it really is ... and this is what MOVIES did to you and the MEDIA does to you, to the point where you lose sight of "yourself". It will be incredibly difficult for you to make it as a band, if you do not have a very good sense of that! You will get lost in the shuffle, like everyone else, when you do not "know" yourself and the equipment, or what you want to do. The results of the experiment is 3 completely different things ... and yes, you are welcome to select the one you like best ... but saying one is warmer than the other? Digital is cold because you drank it? There are 2 moments you must see ... Andy Summers in the "Behind the Music" about The Police. He plays one set of notes without the effects. Then he plays it with the effects. YOU have got to acknowledge that "manipulation" by rock music and musicians to try and find something that sounds better to them ... and that recording will sound better or worse in a different medium than the one it was designed for ... digital! The other is the guitarist for U2 on the film "It's Gonna Get Loud" ... and he does exactly the same thing ... without the effects, it sounds horrible. Lastly ... you are comparing two things that are, for all intents and purposes, almost 50 years apart in concept, and the distortion of such is enormous ... and almost NO ONE here can relate or understand the QUALITY of the recordings that were offered to classical music ... which the Beatles and Rolling Stones broke apart ... and that quality can be found all over the software these days, and various orchestras and sounds that are sampled all over. It took the "fidelity" and "quality" of those recordings to help us learn taht an instrument could sound so good ... but anyone telling you that the digital recording is not warm ... is simply not listening to the REAL THING at all! And btw, YES was much better live at the Long Beach Arena doing Tales From Topographic Oceans, than the recording ever was ... so don't fool yourself! It was, still, one of the best thigns I have ever seen. Pure classical music by my generation ... and what an opus and magnificent show it was, despite some idiots screaming rock'n'roll and roundabout, right in the middle of the piece! Total disrespect for the artistry and artist ... brought on by the idea that rock music, is what movies and film are doing ... gloryfying something that does not exist ... but we think is better than the reality that shines. You can not do better than the "real" shine. And the recording is simple a record of that moment in time, and to say that it is better than the work, is insane and I really believe that most artists would think that is an insult. It's like saying that my painting sucks because it is not set in the paper you want, or my novel stinks because it was published electronically and not in the paper you revere. BTW ... are you going around saying that the paperbound novel is warmer than the digital version? .... same thing! Apples and Oranges ... and you don't need Syd Barrett to tell you about it! You do realize how totally surrealistic your article was? Not quite up to Dali or Bunuel ... but acceptable as surrealistic!
Edited by moshkito - October 13 2012 at 14:32 |
|||||||||
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Surrealist
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2012 Location: Squonk Status: Offline Points: 232 |
Posted: October 13 2012 at 17:06 |
||||||||
|
Do you not realize that all these classic prog albums from the 70's were released on either vinyl or magnetic tape? You have to account for the fact that the medium they recorded on.. played back on in the studio, and a made artistic decisions about was no doubt intrinsically tied to that experience of tape playback. There is a difference or we would not be having this discussion.
THAT is how the work was presented. I would also suggest that the live shows in the 70's were sonically better if not for the fact that the artists at the time had a lot more of their own sound moving across the stage than what is going on today. A lot of the live mixing is being done direct into the board.. or much more that way than in the past. The sounds before where coming out of the amps themselves with much more volume than they typically are now. The modern sound guys back at the board want control over the mix... but in the old days.. a 100 watt Marshall amp, a 300 watt Fender bass cabinet with two 15's in them can fill most rooms by themselves other than stadiums. Does anyone really think arena sound is superior to decent smaller theater venue or a 500 to 1000 seat hall? So really just the drums and vocals would need help from a PA system or other orchestral instruments. Most classic keyboardists liked to make sure they had a full enough sound coming off the stage also. As far as guitarists using effects... I see no issue with any effects as long as they are playing in real time while using those effects... because it affects they way you play.... you have to wait it out and react to the effects... which of course is obvious stuff to any musician. Adding effects in post production is no longer the artist playing their instrument. I would not argue that an artist has every right to do that.. but it rarely sounds as good. Studio work and live performances are different worlds with different objectives... and different bands would take different approaches to it. Zeppelin never had the intention of recreating Page's studio magic live. For one.. you never saw them with extra musicians on stage to fill in the studio parts. At least not when they were really a band in the 60's and 70's. Then you have Rush that who would take pride in pretty much nailing what they did in the studio.. again with just the three of them. Bravo really. Then there is the Pink Floyd approach to blanket the stage with all the missing tracks with supplementary musicians.. and you see that going on a lot with acts now. I saw a Clapton DVD and there were two other guitarist on the stage in the shadows... and the whole entourage with the intention of offering the audience a more rich and accurate experience. Nothing wrong with any of these approaches. But live and studio are different beasts. As far as analog vs digital.. NO I did not drink any hype or tonic. I simply replaced and NAD amp with a really beautifully restored HH Scott Tube amp and that simply did the talking and made the decision to ditch solid state amplification. Then did the same thing with replacing an NAD CD player with a Music Hall TT with a Goldring cartridge and then goodbye CD's. From there it was just dialing in a few little things like speaker cables, interconnects, speaker placement and room dynamics which suddenly really made a difference. If anyone is drinking the tonic, it's the digital hype. No way is it better.. NO F@#*$*N way. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator 
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 13 2012 at 19:12 |
||||||||
 It's not something that you get to choose whether you buy it or not. Valve (tube) amplifiers distort - that is a given fact just as the air is 20.94% oxygen is a given fact. Every electro-mechanical transducer will distort, whether that is a microphone, a stereo cartridge or a loudspeaker because none of them are linear in either the voltage or the time domains. Non-linearity means distortion. The sound that you hear being played back from a vinyl recording will not be a fidelity reproduction of what the record producer heard in the studio - everything will add harmonic distortion to that sound. Distortion does not mean it sounds bad, quite the contrary - it can sound good (real gooood), especially if it is harmonic distortion (which as the name suggests, it is in harmony with the sound you want to listen to) - odd-harmonic distortion adds flute-like timbres, even-harmonic distortion adds brass-like timbres - and in general we like the flute-like odd-harmonics more because they make things sound warmer and more sonorous, and that's exactly the kind of distortion you get from an "analogue" set-up.And of course the brass composition of a saxophone is the distorting of the air coming out of a player's lungs... what else could it be? The technical terminology is formant and it determines why a brass saxophone would sound different to a wooden one or a plastic one and that is completely about distortion and the change in distortion through the duration of each note. Also, the air coming out of the player's lungs is linear and tone-free (ie it's silent) - this air flow vibrates a reed which in-turn vibrates a column of air in the saxophone body - all that is pretty straight forward, except for one vital piece of information - how hard the player blows determines the timbre of the note because the transfer-characteristic of the mouthpiece is non-linear, it's like this:
 And that non-linearity adds harmonic distortion - the harder the player blows the more harmonic distortion is introduced.
 Hi-Fi enthusiasts were once people who sort after audio perfection - the 100% ideal system that added no distortion into their sound-space, a system that faithfully reproduced exactly what the record producer heard in the studio - systems that were ultra-linear in both the voltage/current and the time/frequency domains - that definition has changed.
Gah.... Vinyl sounds are no more natural than nylon fibre. We cannot hear electrical signals - the fact that electrical signals are analogue is meaningless in this context. If you convert acoustic sound waves into analogue electrical signals you have to convert them back into acoustic sound waves. So a microphone converts acoustic sound waves into electrical signals, but since you cannot hear those electrical signals you use a loudspeaker converts them back into acoustic sound-waves. It simply cannot come out sounding the same.
The sampling argument is specious - it feels right to say it but it is not - whatever is incomplete (ie missing) from sampled signals is also missing from vinyl reproduction - the missing frequencies (and that is all that is "missing") are not present on a vinyl reproduction either - the sub-sonics and super-sonics are removed at mastering before the acetate is cut by the RIAA pre-emphasis - just because in theory vinyl is capable of reproducing those frequecies does not mean that they are present in the recording. That you can hear and feel them is mainly psychological - what you are hearing is most likely not what you think it is.
I would love it if we could pick and choose which scientific explanations to live by - I would love to be able to ignore Newton explanation of gravity and fly, I would love to be able to breath underwater or walk through walls - hell, I'd not even be that ambitious, just being able to disregard Georg Ohm and his inconvenient law would be enough.
I think you'll find what you hear in those "science talks" is a million miles away from science - at best is it psuedoscience at worst it is pure marketting horse-feed. Please do not confuse that with real science. Recording of music is the artistic application of science through engineering - playback is the engineering application of science (there is no art involved in playback).
No it isn't. Falling downstairs carrying a tray of pots and pans is natural sounding and there is nothing warm about that. Dragging a metal comb across a pane of glass is natural sounding. Warmth is simply something you prefer.
Say what? I do not see how this affects anything about the playback of a recording (regardless of how it is recorded) made on either vinyl or CD through either a valve or solid-state amplifier. Classical music recording hasn't changed a great deal in the change-over from analogue to digital - the same techniques are used regardless of the media. So I fail to see what point you are making here.
Molecular gastronomy. QED. I don't need to understand the science behind Heston Blumenthal's recipes to enjoy them, but if he understands it and that makes a better meal as a result then I'm more than satisfied. And that is the true analogy here. You do not have to understand the science of sound reproduction to appreciate it, but that does not negate the science behind it. Sure you can fly a mixing desk by the seat of your pants, but you can do it so much better if you understand the science of sound.
Again, this has nothing to do with analogue vs digital and the same techniques apply regardless of the media being used. You seem to have confused dynamic range with frequency range here and that makes a huge difference in how I interpret what you are saying. In a studio EQ is a better tool for creating space for placing individual instruments in a sound-stage than compression will ever be. If you have two instruments competing for the same aural space then no amount of compression will resolve that, yet a bit of top-end EQ on one and a comparable bottom-end EQ on the other will create space so they do not over-lap - this means you can increase the levels on both without creating a cacophony.
There is compromise in every situation, even live on stage where compromise is occasionally reached by smacking the upstaging musician in the mouth (metaphorically of course). Of course the art of music production and engineering is about constructing the sound-stage to give appropriate weight and space to each instrument or instrumental track at the appropriate moments - this is infinitely easier to do in a digital studio than an analogue one, but it is not impossible in either.
No. Vinyl offers no more detail than digital (it offers less). If it is what you prefer then it is what you prefer and nothing more. Edited by Dean - October 13 2012 at 19:18 |
|||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 23 2005 Location: Caerdydd Status: Offline Points: 32995 |
Posted: October 13 2012 at 19:33 |
||||||||
|
I like and agree with your argument Dean. Time for bedfordshire here.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 13 2012 at 20:23 |
||||||||
And? At no time during the recording or studio play-back did vinyl ever enter into the equation - they used magentic tape running at 15 or 30 in/s (compared to 7½ and 3¾ in/s on home tape decks or one inch and seven-eights per second for cassette) - so there is simply no comparison between studio tape and domestic tape. So whatever artistic decisions were made in the studio they were not governed by the final playback media (however I did read that one producer had a 4" mono speaker in the studio so he could hear what the recording would sound like on AM radio).
This is bizarre to say the least. Stage back-line equipment and venue PA hasn't changed a great deal over the past 40 years -sure mixing desks have got a hell of a lot bigger and PA amps more powerful because they have become more affordable to a small venue's budget, but how they are used hasn't experienced a sea-change over that time period. Bands still use 100W Marshall amps (in fact the 100W Marshall head still seems to be de rigueur) and a bassist will still use a 2x15" cab driven by his pet favourite amp. To quote the Moody Blues - it is a question of balance, and that balance is determined by the loudest instrument on stage (which is invariably the drums) - regardless of venue size everything is amplified up to that level, then everything on stage is then PA'd up to fill the room. To fill even a small venue with only the back-line amplifiers sound horrible - too loud at the front and too uneven at the back. The aim is to get an even balance throughout the hall.
And it's quite rare for a guitarist to "hand-over" control of his effects to a sound engineer. Every guitarist I know manages his own effects apart from the occasional peice of studio trickery such as reversing the track.
But Floyd and Clapton have shown that they do not have to be different beasts. That Gilmour shares the stage with guitarists of the calibre of Snowy White or Phil Manzanera or that Clapton employs Andy Fairweather Low merely allows them to reproduce that multitracked studio sound. A harmonc guitar solo sounds sweet in the studio, but it sounds sweeter still when reproduced live on stage by two talented guitarists working in unison. I am more than happy to admire the skill involved than worry about the integrity of it and just as the listening experience in the home is important to the enjoyment of an album, the same is true at a live show - if it sounds good who cares how many musicians it took to reproduce it. If I go to see David Bowie or Peter Gabriel play live I'm not going to complain that they have backing singers on stage with them (or guitarists, keyboardists and drummerists come to that).
 Not sure where that outburst is coming from. I don't think I (or Pedro) accused you of drinking any hype. If you prefer your analogue set-up then that's fine by me.Edited by Dean - October 13 2012 at 20:25 |
|||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: October 13 2012 at 21:52 |
||||||||
|
^^^ Maybe he hoped to find some audiophile customers for his systems on this forum and doesn't like you raining on his parade.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: October 13 2012 at 22:36 |
||||||||
Er, there are people who prefer separation. It is a preference, plain and simple. Why do you find it so hard to acknowledge the right of others to have their own preferences? Nobody is saying the old way was or is bad but you seem to object to it if Dean merely espouses the possible merits of digital (while always stating that liking one more than the other is a preference).
The point is, it is a distortion and is completely unlike classical music in that regard. Do classical musicians use pedals to beef up their tone a la Hackett? Do classical singers use powerful mikes to make their high notes sound bigger? Do they use voice boxes to distort their tone? Classical music is pristine and does not involve manipulation whereas rock is arguably all about manipulation. Rock has always been about projecting the sound in a certain way that is, irrespective of whether it sounds good, artificial and not authentic in any meaningful sense of the word. So for all that you have been raving about authenticity, those rock and prog classics were not authentic either; they also involved manipulation. That is what Pedro is trying to tell you. So at the end of the day, you have simply stated that you prefer one form of distortion over the other, viz, the analog photograph of Mona Lisa over the digital. Neither, though, is the real thing. Because you grew up in that era, you find it harder to accept the changes in the digital era and cling to the belief that 60s and 70s was the real thing. The dense sound of analog aids confirmation of this belief. But it was also ultimately dressed up and presented; it was NOT like listening to said musicians playing in their bedroom without amplification or any such interference.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Surrealist
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2012 Location: Squonk Status: Offline Points: 232 |
Posted: October 14 2012 at 00:46 |
||||||||
|
It's pretty clear that neither of you are listening to progressive rock with a quality analog set up. If you were, you would be understanding what I am saying.
The preference argument is silly. That is like saying I would rather listen to music on an ipod with an mp3 file than through any quality stereo system. I am talking about quality here.. not convenience. You may prefer an ipod with 500 hours of crap in your pocket.. rather than housing 500 vinyl records... but there is no quality argument there. I really didn't believe it either a few years ago as I was into digital playback and recording. This thread or the original poster suggested their might be a need for a good analog set up to really appreciate classic prog as it should be presented. I am not here to sell stereo systems.. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: October 14 2012 at 01:36 |
||||||||
The implication being that the same prog album that is a "masterpiece" on beloved vinyl suddenly and magically transforms to mere "crap" in 320 kbps mp3 format on an Ipod? If that be true, does such an album really deserve to be called a masterpiece in the first place? Enough of this discussion. If you cannot accommodate preferences of other participants in a discussion, why discuss in the first place. You insisting your position to be true based on arguments that only detail your preferences is no different from superstitious people telling me that a black cat is a harbinger of bad luck.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17846 |
Posted: October 14 2012 at 01:51 |
||||||||
|
I have mentioned many times, in this thread, that I cannot argue with Dean on the specs of digital and its "perfect" reproduction of sound...A zero is a zero and a one is a one....PERIOD.
I really do not delve into specs that much, sure there are some basic things I look for but even still they are just a baseline number....When I am looking for new gear that is. I love hi-fi gear, always have, I also love music, I always have...And I will always buy the gear that sounds the best to me. I do this because I want my music to sound the best that it can for my ears.
The iPod, mp3 player, music played thru a laptop or a phone is the bottom of the barrel in regards to music quality....I don't have too much of a problem saying that because I am 48 and I know the difference, and I also don't have a problem saying it because I do listen to some of those mediums, its convenient...So I am ragging on myself!
For serious listening I will always choose my vinyl on my analog system....For every single adjective I have used in the past and all others here, including ones Dean and rogerthat have used.
Other than the specs part...every part of this thread is subjective, just like 99% of the threads on this website is also subjective....We are all pleading our case for our fav band and reasons why....Subjective! There is no right or wrong answer, to each his own.
Its a discussion that will never end, I am fine with that, for the most part its a subjective discussion...So who cares really...but it is a lot of fun!!
Some of us are passionate about our music and how it sounds to us...at the end of the day we want it to sound as natural as possible, digital or analog. And you all know I lean heavily to the analog/vinyl side...and I am so perfectly fine with that.
|
|||||||||
  
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Surrealist
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2012 Location: Squonk Status: Offline Points: 232 |
Posted: October 14 2012 at 02:42 |
||||||||
|
Catcher, it does not surprise me that you are 48 and prefer vinyl. You simply cannot un know what you know. Am I correct in guessing that Dean and Roger are quite a bit younger?
1's and 0's have no bearing on accuracy by themselves. Ipods sound like crap and they are running off 1's and 0's. I don't think it is a coincidence that we don't hear the rich sounding guitar tones of the past in the modern age. It dies in the digital format. What sounds better going to digital are the more tinny trebley guitar sounds used by bands like the Chili Peppers or the more metallic sounding crunchy guitars of the modern metal scene. Techno music works better in the digital age. Page, Lifeson, Hendrix, Uli Roth, Blackmore, Micheal Shenker, Santana all had great tone that was much better captured on magnetic tape. Had those guys come along now, we never would have heard those sounds. All totally unique. Now, most everyone sounds the same. I don't think it is coincidence either that when the format changed.. the great bands of the 70's stopped making great albums. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: October 14 2012 at 03:03 |
||||||||
You didn't read where Dean mentioned he is 55? Or is it too inconvenient for your nice little theory about how only old farts like you can appreciate 'real' music? And FYI, I have most of the renowned 70s prog classics as well as some 50s and 60s jazz albums in my collection. Red is my faovurite rock music album of all time. I shared my appreciation for Renaissance with a friend who will hopefully get to see them this year. I am not so fortunate but I am glad at least he got the chance because he works in the USA. The problem with you is your posts are made through a judgmental and presumptuous prism.
Edited by rogerthat - October 14 2012 at 03:04 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17846 |
Posted: October 14 2012 at 03:07 |
||||||||
|
Dean is older than I, rogerthat not sure....But not sure that matters, other than anyone younger may have difficulty switiching or understanding what some of might be talking about.
My comment was more about not arguing the definition of the digital media, it should sound better and offer a better experience....But for me in a lot of cases it does not and really has to do with the way the CD is mixed, made whatever...In general they tend to sound very bad. Garbage in garbage out basically.....And of course I do agree that recordings from back in the day were by most accounts better sounding.
Maybe one day the recording/mixing people will figure out how to make CDs sound better, rather than just turn up the volume.
I agree iPods sound like crapp and really that is because the internal DAC they have is very low end and yes people using 192kbps to 320kbps files...sure not the best, but it is what it is for most.
The iPod can sound better with an external DAC bypassing the internal one, digital connection via a coax or toslink cable with a dock, if people want better sound, again a subjective comment, maybe people don't and that is fine.
This thread is about the sound of analog in prog and its importance....to me it is very important, and I like it. Pretty much all that matters to me.
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 14 2012 at 03:13 |
||||||||
|
Pedro is older still.
|
|||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17846 |
Posted: October 14 2012 at 03:16 |
||||||||
He is passionate about his music and how it gets played, nothing wrong with that. Again, just like 99% of the threads and posts on this whole site about why Dream Theater is the greatest prog metal band of all time and the Beatles are the greatest band of all time.......People can get very passionate about their likes and dislikes.
I am not sure what defines an "old fart" or what defines a "young kid that does not know anything yet"......I mean I farted while I began typing this, is that an old fart now?
 |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: October 14 2012 at 03:22 |
||||||||
Pardon? I am passionate about the music I like and I am sure so is Dean. Is that a licence to start judging people and imposing one's opinions on others in a discussion? Who exactly said analog is bad in this discussion? As far as I can tell, Dean has only refuted some claims made about what digital cannot do. I'd be interested to see if somebody can formulate counter arguments with similar rigour instead of simply ranting against him...you know, like, "no f****ing way". Eh, what's that even supposed to mean.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17846 |
Posted: October 14 2012 at 03:48 |
||||||||
|
^ Calm down already....How passionate you are about your music is your issue, I only mentioned Surrealist......You are on this site so its logical u are passionate about music.
I think we can only judge comments as I don't know you..so no I do not judge people I do not know.....
Relax......If u don't like the OP comment/question then say so and be done with it, some of us do agree with the comment and prefer to continue in that thinking.
Maybe you should start a thread....."the importance of digital sound in prog".
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 14 2012 at 03:51 |
||||||||
I have a good analogue set-up and I listen to prog. I'll grant you that none of my two turntables, three solid-state amps, two valve amps or four sets of speakers live up to any audiophilist cheque-book standard but I'm happy with them (my only CD player is actually a DVD player bought of Amazon for £20, thus far it's lasted longer than any CD player I've ever owned). But I do know what I hear, and I do know what it means and I do understand what you are saying I just disagree with all the pseudotechnical comments you are making.
Now you're just being rude, and have ignored everything I have written because it contradicts your beliefs. I have never mentioned preferring an iPlod and mp3 files nor have I mentioned convenience or quality and I would certainly never use the word "crap" to describe any set-up I've never seen nor heard. I own over 700 vinyl albums, most of them are Prog and a few of them are of modern bands, I also own several 1000 CDs (too scared to count them all) and have 672 hours of music on my Archos (hate, hate, hate iPlods but not for any rational technical reason). Even if I exclusively listened to vinyl at home, I would still need CDs to play in the car and mp3s to play on the train, plane,at the beach or when pottering about in the garden. HOWEVER, I do listen to all three in the home on my one of my more than adequate hi-fi setups. There is no quality argument here because there is no quality argument period. Analogue is not better than digital, CD is better than vinyl, solid-state is more perfect than valve (tube) but if you prefer vinyl/analogue/valve(tube) then that's fine.
The original poster did not say that at all. He stated that (in referring to vinyl): "this detail only analog sound can offer to you" ... which is a fallacy since vinyl cannot have more detail than digital. He said nothing about the need for a good analogue set-up.
|
|||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: October 14 2012 at 03:56 |
||||||||
I never said YOU are judgmental, I was obviously referring to Surrealist. I am entitled to take issue with his attempts to use rhetoric to divert the argument from objective aspects. If somebody's going to argue subjective aspects, he also needs to concede that subjective things do reside in the eyes of the beholder, period. No point going, how on earth, about it. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 45678 38> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
the importance of analog sound in prog
Topic Options
Surrealist wrote: