Stereophile and progressive rock |
Post Reply |
Author | |
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Topic: Stereophile and progressive rock Posted: April 16 2006 at 04:55 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 21138 |
Posted: April 16 2006 at 05:31 |
Nice website! I don't mean to start an argument here, but you should have a look at this article, oliver: |
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: April 16 2006 at 05:45 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 21138 |
Posted: April 16 2006 at 05:50 |
They admit that listening to ripped audio CDs in a computer environment is possible for audiophiles, that's all I ask.
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: April 16 2006 at 06:28 |
There are good and bad reviewers/articles of course
|
|
Mikerinos
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Planet Gong Status: Offline Points: 8890 |
Posted: April 16 2006 at 10:47 |
Awesome site, thanks Oliver.
|
|
|
|
mystic fred
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 13 2006 Location: Londinium Status: Offline Points: 4252 |
Posted: April 16 2006 at 10:59 |
fascinating site, oliver, one i will browse again from time to time.
|
|
Prog Archives Tour Van
|
|
Sacred 22
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 24 2006 Status: Offline Points: 1509 |
Posted: April 25 2006 at 05:09 |
http://www.uhfmag.com/
This audio mag I find to be a little less ad driven than Stereophile and it cators to people who have limited budgets as well as the rich.
So much of what is reviewed in Stereophile is influenced heavily by big money IMHO.
This is not to say that Stereophile is a "bad" magazine.
They publish little or nothing about progressive rock though. Most audio publications fall into this catagory. More classical and jazz driven with the typical mainstream rock/pop stuff thrown in to keep some of the mid aged folks who still listen to rock happy.
Trouble is, most rock recordings are really bad, where as jazz and classical recordings tend to be a bit better (sound reproduction wise). Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, but........................
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: April 25 2006 at 05:49 |
"Trouble is, most rock recordings are really bad, where as jazz and classical recordings tend to be a bit better (sound reproduction wise). Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, but........................"
That's very true. And it's there that vintage vynil wons. |
|
mystic fred
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 13 2006 Location: Londinium Status: Offline Points: 4252 |
Posted: May 03 2006 at 02:40 |
i notice the early beatles and rock'n'roll recordings seem very clear, they used simple studio set-ups using very few microphones. this may also be true for jazz and classical recordings too, some modern multi-track recordings seem over-produced and flat, maybe they try to squeeze too many layers in?
there's a lot to be said for less complicated studio set-ups, look what deep purple achieved on the rolling stones mobile in a corridor and various halls, and led zeppelin's john bonham achieving a fantastic drum sound in the stairwell at headley grange, and some live recordings such as clapton's "unplugged" achieved great results. could "less" actually mean "more"..?
|
|
Prog Archives Tour Van
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: May 03 2006 at 06:26 |
Yes, the studio's acoustic is another issue.
In the last Stereophile paper magazine, there's an article about a Dina Crawl recording session and it's said that more and more artists, thanks (?) to digital home studio, tend to record at home with a very poor result, because of bad acoustic. So, the studio's acoustic is also very important in the result. And yes, The Clapton is very good sounding. |
|
Post Reply | |
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 |