| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Gerinski 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
 Posted: January 06 2013 at 10:37 |
 Dean wrote:
Roxbrough wrote:
Aquiring the Taste wrote:
31st year of this silly argument, there would be no analog left if C.D. was able to equal or better it.
|
Abslutely and now record sales are on the increase, despite the fact that children think they hear music on You Tube???!!! |
Sounds good don't it? In 2011 Vinyl sales were 39% up on 2010 - 337,000 vinyl abums sold in the UK... the highest figure since 2005.
Of course that's compared to 86,000,0000 CDs and 27,000,000 album download sales. In 2011 vinyl accounted for just shy of 0.3% of all album sales. And of course hip-hop and techno accounted for most of those vinyls.
Does also beg the question of what happened between 2005 and 2010 to cause a comparable drop in vinyl sales to be able to measure that increase against - can't really blame CD or downloads for that since both were around long before 2005. One explanation is simply fashions and fads.
But hey - a 39% increase.  |
At any rate quantitative sales comparison would never be a proof of anything. In the modern world sales success does not proof quality, often all the contrary, look at music itself, TV programs, movies or whatever you want.
|
 |
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: January 06 2013 at 10:43 |
NotAProghead wrote:
Back then, in my schooldays, I've heard "Dark Side of the Moon" for the first time from crappy mono reel to reel copy and it was like heaven, it was music from another planet.
Now I have the album on CD, LP and Super-Audio CD with surround sound, but, no matter how I try, I can't bring back that "unearthly" feeling.
It's possible to listen to music from any source, quality sound is a good bonus but not a main thing at all. |
Yup, childhood experiences of music are amazing. I heard all the music of my childhood on tape, not LP, not CD. If I had, ermmm, profound experience and judgment then, I guess I'd have denied myself the joy of music because it was the wrong medium. It is sad that experience seems to make so many people close minded about music instead of making them more adventurous.
Edited by rogerthat - January 06 2013 at 10:43
|
|
octopus-4
Special Collaborator
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl,Neo & Post/Math Teams
Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14110
|
Posted: January 06 2013 at 10:51 |
NotAProghead wrote:
Roxbrough wrote:
It is impossible to listen to music on you tube. The 'sound' that comes out of the computer is not that created by the artist.
Luxemberg ditto. It is the same as asking what is wrong with looking at only 22% of the Mona Lisa? The answer is the same. If you do not enjoy 100% of the artists creation, then you have not experienced it as it was intended to be experienced. |
Back then, in my schooldays, I've heard "Dark Side of the Moon" for the first time from crappy mono reel to reel copy and it was like heaven, it was music from another planet.
Now I have the album on CD, LP and Super-Audio CD with surround sound, but, no matter how I try, I can't bring back that "unearthly" feeling.
It's possible to listen to music from any source, quality sound is a good bonus but not a main thing at all. |
If music is good even a mono tape recorded from a scratching radio is good. We old farts had a lot of experiences of this kind in the old years before internet. My experience witj DSOTM was almost the same.
|
|
I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 06 2013 at 11:01 |
Gerinski wrote:
Dean wrote:
Roxbrough wrote:
Aquiring the Taste wrote:
31st year of this silly argument, there would be no analog left if C.D. was able to equal or better it.
|
Abslutely and now record sales are on the increase, despite the fact that children think they hear music on You Tube???!!! |
Sounds good don't it? In 2011 Vinyl sales were 39% up on 2010 - 337,000 vinyl abums sold in the UK... the highest figure since 2005.
Of course that's compared to 86,000,0000 CDs and 27,000,000 album download sales. In 2011 vinyl accounted for just shy of 0.3% of all album sales. And of course hip-hop and techno accounted for most of those vinyls.
Does also beg the question of what happened between 2005 and 2010 to cause a comparable drop in vinyl sales to be able to measure that increase against - can't really blame CD or downloads for that since both were around long before 2005. One explanation is simply fashions and fads.
But hey - a 39% increase. |
At any rate quantitative sales comparison would never be a proof of anything. In the modern world sales success does not proof quality, often all the contrary, look at music itself, TV programs, movies or whatever you want. |
It has been said before in this thread - compact cassettes out-sold vinyl long before CDs were introduced. With the comparison between cassette and vinyl the objective differences were closely mirrored by the subjective listening differences.
Another point I have made repeatedly in this thread - if you compare the worse of one media with the best of the other media you are not playing fair and you are not fooling anyone. Comparing the worse Youtube format with the best analogue format (erm.. well using a Rega instead of an old BSR turntable fitted with a crystal pickup) is disengenous. The best Youtube format is AAC @ 192kbits/s .. this isn't an inferior format.
|
|
What?
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: January 06 2013 at 11:03 |
octopus-4 wrote:
NotAProghead wrote:
Roxbrough wrote:
It is impossible to listen to music on you tube. The 'sound' that comes out of the computer is not that created by the artist.
Luxemberg ditto. It is the same as asking what is wrong with looking at only 22% of the Mona Lisa? The answer is the same. If you do not enjoy 100% of the artists creation, then you have not experienced it as it was intended to be experienced. |
Back then, in my schooldays, I've heard "Dark Side of the Moon" for the first time from crappy mono reel to reel copy and it was like heaven, it was music from another planet.
Now I have the album on CD, LP and Super-Audio CD with surround sound, but, no matter how I try, I can't bring back that "unearthly" feeling.
It's possible to listen to music from any source, quality sound is a good bonus but not a main thing at all. |
If music is good even a mono tape recorded from a scratching radio is good. We old farts had a lot of experiences of this kind in the old years before internet. My experience witj DSOTM was almost the same. |
While I agree, this is an entirely different discussion, we were not discussing whether X music is good or bad but whether listening to ANY through analog systems provides a better or worse sound quality than through a digital system.
In an otherwise endless discussion about subjective preferences, I have attempted to provide some objective and scientific information on the subject in the 2 links in my posts in page 29. I believe that especially the 2nd one seem written by people who know a thing or two about sound and human hearing (even the 1st one, I guess that Stanford University tutors are not fools).
Now let's see which objective counter-information can the analog defenders provide.
Edited by Gerinski - January 06 2013 at 11:26
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: January 06 2013 at 11:08 |
Dean wrote:
Another point I have made repeatedly in this thread - if you compare the worse of one media with the best of the other media you are not playing fair and you are not fooling anyone. Comparing the worse Youtube format with the best analogue format (erm.. well using a Rega instead of an old BSR turntable fitted with a crystal pickup) is disengenous. The best Youtube format is AAC @ 192kbits/s .. this isn't an inferior format. |
Indeed, that YouTube reference is completely off the discussion point. AM radio was analog and, hmmmm, it sounded soooo great!! 
|
|
NotAProghead
Special Collaborator
Errors & Omissions Team
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: Russia
Status: Offline
Points: 7852
|
Posted: January 06 2013 at 14:57 |
Gerinski wrote:
In an otherwise endless discussion about subjective preferences, I have attempted to provide some objective and scientific information on the subject ... |
You can provide as much information as the humankind collected since the beginnig of recording era, but if the man has "ears" and strong opinion nothing you can do about him. 
Discussion is useful if both sides listen to each other, otherwise it all is "pseudo-science" and "get a proper analog setup before arguing".
Edited by NotAProghead - January 06 2013 at 16:43
|
|
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: January 06 2013 at 19:59 |
NotAProghead wrote:
Gerinski wrote:
In an otherwise endless discussion about subjective preferences, I have attempted to provide some objective and scientific information on the subject ... |
You can provide as much information as the humankind collected since the beginnig of recording era, but if the man has "ears" and strong opinion nothing you can do about him.
Discussion is useful if both sides listen to each other, otherwise it all is "pseudo-science" and "get a proper analog setup before arguing".
|
There"s no problem with anybody saying: "despite whatever objective data says, I still prefer analog". There are people who enjoy better driving an oldtimer than a modern car even if it's unquestionable that the modern car drives better. There's no problem with that. But at least they will stop saying things like "analog is objectively better" or "anybody not preferring analog is deaf".
|
|
NotAProghead
Special Collaborator
Errors & Omissions Team
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: Russia
Status: Offline
Points: 7852
|
Posted: January 06 2013 at 20:09 |
Gerinski wrote:
But at least they will stop saying things like "analog is objectively better" or "anybody not preferring analog is deaf". |
This thread is already 30 pages long, but it was clear from the start that Surrealist will never stop saying that "analog is objectively better" and "anybody not preferring analog is deaf".
Thanks to Dean for interesting information, diagrams etc though.
|
|
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: January 06 2013 at 20:17 |
Gerinski wrote:
NotAProghead wrote:
Gerinski wrote:
In an otherwise endless discussion about subjective preferences, I have attempted to provide some objective and scientific information on the subject ... |
You can provide as much information as the humankind collected since the beginnig of recording era, but if the man has "ears" and strong opinion nothing you can do about him.
Discussion is useful if both sides listen to each other, otherwise it all is "pseudo-science" and "get a proper analog setup before arguing".
|
There"s no problem with anybody saying: "despite whatever objective data says, I still prefer analog". There are people who enjoy better driving an oldtimer than a modern car even if it's unquestionable that the modern car drives better. There's no problem with that. But at least they will stop saying things like "analog is objectively better" or "anybody not preferring analog is deaf". |
Oh, you still don't get it.  Scientists don't know anything about music, they can't fool people with diagrams and numbers. Any man with experience and judgment would always know analog is better. Blah blah blah...I agree with NotAProghead. Thanks for posting anyway.
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17510
|
Posted: January 07 2013 at 12:11 |
Gerinski wrote:
...
At any rate quantitative sales comparison would never be a proof of anything. In the modern world sales success does not proof quality, often all the contrary, look at music itself, TV programs, movies or whatever you want. |
Sadly, you are writing this on a fan board that has a "top ten" ... most of which is relative to sales instead of anything else!
|
|
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
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: January 07 2013 at 12:12 |
moshkito wrote:
Gerinski wrote:
...
At any rate quantitative sales comparison would never be a proof of anything. In the modern world sales success does not proof quality, often all the contrary, look at music itself, TV programs, movies or whatever you want. |
Sadly, you are writing this on a fan board that has a "top ten" ... most of which is relative to sales instead of anything else! |
No it isn't.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 07 2013 at 12:18 |
Snow Dog wrote:
moshkito wrote:
Gerinski wrote:
...
At any rate quantitative sales comparison would never be a proof of anything. In the modern world sales success does not proof quality, often all the contrary, look at music itself, TV programs, movies or whatever you want. |
Sadly, you are writing this on a fan board that has a "top ten" ... most of which is relative to sales instead of anything else! |
No it isn't. |
Well it is sorta - the more people who rate or review an album the higher it will place for the same average rating, in other words the weighting is geared towards popularity, which is relative to sales.
|
|
What?
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: January 07 2013 at 12:23 |
Dean wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
moshkito wrote:
Gerinski wrote:
...
At any rate quantitative sales comparison would never be a proof of anything. In the modern world sales success does not proof quality, often all the contrary, look at music itself, TV programs, movies or whatever you want. |
Sadly, you are writing this on a fan board that has a "top ten" ... most of which is relative to sales instead of anything else! |
No it isn't. |
Well it is sorta - the more people who rate or review an album the higher it will place for the same average rating, in other words the weighting is geared towards popularity, which is relative to sales. |
I don't really follow that logic. But more well known albums are reviewed more.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 07 2013 at 12:32 |
Snow Dog wrote:
Dean wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
moshkito wrote:
Gerinski wrote:
...
At any rate quantitative sales comparison would never be a proof of anything. In the modern world sales success does not proof quality, often all the contrary, look at music itself, TV programs, movies or whatever you want. |
Sadly, you are writing this on a fan board that has a "top ten" ... most of which is relative to sales instead of anything else! |
No it isn't. |
Well it is sorta - the more people who rate or review an album the higher it will place for the same average rating, in other words the weighting is geared towards popularity, which is relative to sales. |
I don't really follow that logic. But more well known albums are reviewed more. |
Exactly. Chart position is not calculated on average rating, it's done on the Query Weighted Rating (QWR) which gives higher weighting to abums with above average number of ratings, so in the Top 20 of 2012 you get Life Line Project at #7 even though it's average rating is greater than any of the albums above it because it has few ratings than any of them - ie it's less popular.
|
|
What?
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: January 07 2013 at 12:38 |
|
So nothing to do with sales.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 07 2013 at 12:42 |
Snow Dog wrote:
So nothing to do with sales. |
No, not "nothing" - Pedro said "relative to sales" and he is right, it is relative to sales and that is something to do with sales. More people review an album that is more well known, it is more well known because it sold more copies to more people, therefore it gets more reviews because it sold more copies.
|
|
What?
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: January 07 2013 at 12:44 |
Dean wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
So nothing to do with sales. |
No, not "nothing" - Pedro said "relative to sales" and he is right, it is relative to sales and that is something to do with sales. More people review an album that is more well known, it is more well known because it sold more copies to more people, therefore it gets more reviews because it sold more copies.
|
Nope. Sorry will have to just disagree. Don't want to argue further or you to hurt your head any more.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 07 2013 at 12:46 |
Snow Dog wrote:
Dean wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
So nothing to do with sales. |
No, not "nothing" - Pedro said "relative to sales" and he is right, it is relative to sales and that is something to do with sales. More people review an album that is more well known, it is more well known because it sold more copies to more people, therefore it gets more reviews because it sold more copies.
|
Nope. Sorry will have to just disagree. Don't want to argue further or you to hurt your head any more. |
You are not disagreeing. You are saying we're wrong wiothout giving an explanation of why you think we are wrong.
|
|
What?
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: January 07 2013 at 12:47 |
Dean wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Dean wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
So nothing to do with sales. |
No, not "nothing" - Pedro said "relative to sales" and he is right, it is relative to sales and that is something to do with sales. More people review an album that is more well known, it is more well known because it sold more copies to more people, therefore it gets more reviews because it sold more copies.
|
Nope. Sorry will have to just disagree. Don't want to argue further or you to hurt your head any more. |
You are not disagreeing. You are saying we're wrong wiothout giving an explanation of why you think we are wrong. |
I am disagreeing. I just did it.
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
the importance of analog sound in prog
