"Lo-fi" appreciation thread
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Tech Talk
Forum Description: Discuss musical instruments, equipment, hi-fi, speakers, vinyl, gadgets,etc.
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=29778
Printed Date: November 21 2024 at 17:44
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: "Lo-fi" appreciation thread
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Subject: "Lo-fi" appreciation thread
Date Posted: October 13 2006 at 05:46
|
How many of you can appreciate "poor" sounds?
I very fond of the thrashy sounds on many late 60's and early 70's recordings. One great example would be HAWKWIND's "Space Ritual". The raw sounds are just so cool as you turn the volume high! Also some BBC recordings have very funny sound tone. I have played the BBC sessions of CREAM and JIMI HENRDIX EXPERIENCE with attaching a 50W Bassman Ten combo as an extra loudspeaker, and the soundwall is just terrific! We once tried this thing at our rehearshal room, by attaching a CD player to a 100W Fender loudspeaker, and turning the vol near max made the music to be felt physically!
In 60's recordings I like the way how drums sound, if they are recorded with a bit too high recording level with analog recordes. They distort in a cool way, unlike if the recording is done too loud with digital recorders. We have tried to replicate these sounds in our training room, once we microphoned the drums and added an echo pedal to them, and recorded it with high recording levels. The result was a wonderful storm, sadly as the track is old it wasn't a very great performance musically.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: October 13 2006 at 05:53
|
There is a fad/fashion in music called Lo-fi where the music is almost purposedly badly recorded in unsuitable places (such as a kitchen sink). I've heard some of the music this is type of genre caters >> generally poor folk singer/songwriter. ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: October 13 2006 at 05:54
|
Poor quality audio kit produces some of the best sounds going. Think of a Hammond organ with the Leslie speaker cranked up well beyond its capabilities. It sounds great. Where would Deep Purple and Uriah Heep have been without it? The same applies to electric guitars, you get the best sounds from a low grade amp being driven too hard.
I remember when I was much younger listening to Radio Luxembourg on long wave radio. Appalling sound quality but it still holds great memories for me. Your brain adapts to the sound and fills in the gaps for you. You don't need perfect audio to appreciate music. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 13 2006 at 06:20
|
"Your brain adapts to the sound and fills in the gaps for you"
Yes, but you can end up with a headache. That's the case with (poor) digital. "You don't need perfect audio to appreciate music." Yes, fortunatly, cause there's always better. High fidelity has virtually no limit. |
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: October 13 2006 at 06:22
|
MP3 at 64kbps?! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10"> 
|
Posted By: Meddler
Date Posted: October 13 2006 at 06:27
|
I love the sound of Lo-fi. It just sounds *great* with certain songs. ------------- [IMG]http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/amorfous/astro-1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: October 13 2006 at 10:48
Change the record please  We've heard it all before.------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
oliverstoned wrote:Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 13 2006 at 11:03
Change for vinyl? OK 
|
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: October 13 2006 at 11:06
|
Well vinyl sits well in this thread.
------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: October 13 2006 at 11:14
|
Or alternatively
------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 13 2006 at 11:14
|
As a sound engineer, you can maybe explain me why all "rock" Cds sound so bad? |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: October 13 2006 at 11:17
Many years ago (1966) Dad bought us a Pam record player with a Garrard autochanger deck, similar to a Dansette except more expensive - it was tremendously exciting at the time, i used to rush home from school and on went my "All you need is love" and "Strawberry Fields" singles. I heard all my first important music on this, including "Sgt.Pepper", but eventually the lure of stereo technology consigned our old friend to the attic, where it remained until a few years ago - i rediscovered my little gem from yesteryear, had her professionally restored, and now regularly play all my old singles on it again....which sound just like they used to, of course! 
-------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: October 13 2006 at 11:19
|
I'm not sure that "all" of them do. I expect that the producer puts far too much compression and low frequency and high frequency emphasis on to make them sound louder. You know how rock musicians like everything turned to 11. It might work ok with your instrument amp but never with the PA or mixing desk.
Listen to the CD single of "You Could Be Mine" by GnR and you'll hear a very clear sharp rock sound. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 13 2006 at 11:39
|
About 90% of rock Cds are atrocely trafficked as you said...but among the 10% left, no one can compete with the original vynil...here's the sad truth.
You can only quote one single with a good sound. |
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: October 13 2006 at 11:50
|
I can quote many more, that was just an example. An awful lot of rock vinyls sound awful as well. Take most of the seventies Blue Oyster Cult recordings; they all seem to have been recorded through a wet sock. Must have been using some worn out old 8 track tape. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 13 2006 at 14:32
|
Of course if the master used is poor, the result can't be good, whatever the format. |
Posted By: Solo
Date Posted: October 14 2006 at 03:40
|
There is a huge difference between lo-fi sounds and vintage sounds.
Often times, early 70's/60s "lo fi" is just the gear working the way it did.
I'll let you in on a little secret though; to get the sound of the 70's you need three things
1) A multitrack tape machine made before 1980
2) A recording console made before 1980
3) A reel of tape made before 1980
 This is a 1/2" reel of 3M 203. It was made in the early 70's. I was lucky to buy it sealed! Best $40 bucks ever!
And vintage instruments help...
  |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 14 2006 at 05:08
|
The best tapedeck ever (1982/83), the Nakas made reel to reel devices obsolete. 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 14 2006 at 05:39
Gold improves sound ... a simple rule for simple minds! Seriously, I think the designers of these devices watched Goldfinger one time too often!  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 14 2006 at 06:07
|
I've got the black one, but it's not the improved version by Mr Nakamichi! 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 14 2006 at 06:11
|
Wikipedia:
"In 1973 Nakamichi created stereo cassette decks with such high quality that eventually made reel-to-reel tape recorders obsolete for consumers. The Nakamichi 1000 and 700 were regarded as two of the finest cassette recorders made in the mid-1970s. They had three heads, dual capstan drive that reduced wow and flutter to new low levels, and Dolby-B noise reduction to improve the signal to noise ratio. The feature that really set them apart was the adjustable record head azimuth and Dolby calibration that could be optimized for each cassette tape. Many audiophiles aspired to but could not afford a Nakamichi 1000 or 700 (whose model number was derived from the list price), so Nakamichi came out with more economical two-head models such as the Nakamichi 500 and the silver wedge-shaped 600. Nakamichi pushed live recording with their Nakamichi 550, a portable cassette recorder that had three microphone inputs: one for left channel, one for right channel, and one for a center blend channel. This recorder could run from batteries or AC and was used to make very high quality recordings in the field. All of these products were known for top-notch engineering and sound quality. In the late 1970s Nakamichi updated their machines with the Nakamichi 1000 II, the 700 II, and other midrange and low-end models, but overall they became more complex and less reliable, and prices were raised as well. They branched out into other audio components such as amplifiers and eventually speakers, but these products were never as highly regarded by the audio community as their cassette decks were. In the early 1980s Nakamichi came out with further refinements in a successor top-of-the-line machine, the Nakamichi 1000ZXL. Prices pushed upward again, with this machine being $3,800 at the time. The updated 700ZXL was a mere $3,000. Low-end cassette decks sold new for under $200, with the Nakamichi name on them. This time period stands as the pinnacle for cassette recorders, as from that time onwards digital recording methods began to make inroads." |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 14 2006 at 06:55
|
^ so what the article is essentially saying is that they made a tape deck which made reel-to-reel tape recorders obsolete. But it's still a tape deck, which means: lo-fi in terms of reliability, durability, copying etc.. But of course back in 1973 there were no alternatives. and: still the gold had nothing to do with it. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Fitzcarraldo
Date Posted: October 15 2006 at 15:17
|
Back in the second half of the 1960s we used to have a miniature portable record player at
home that was even smaller than the Sound Burger (see first three photos below)
released in later years (in the 1980s, I believe). It was a clamshell design but opened
differently to the Sound Burger, enabling it to be more compact. It
looked more like the AIWA micro portable record player shown in
last three photos below. Now these record players were 'lo-fi'. Sounded OK, though. Sound Burger promo:  Sound Burger showing storage position of the arm, and the folding lid.  Sound Burger playing an LP:  AIWA micro-portable playing a single:  AIWA micro-portable playing an LP:  AIWA micro-portable compared to an LP:  ------------- http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=326" rel="nofollow - Read reviews by Fitzcarraldo |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: October 16 2006 at 04:58
| Wow... I want a Sound Burger so bad! Not that I expect the audio quality to be very good, but it would be an awesome thing to have... |
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: October 16 2006 at 05:15
As CD did vinyl!!
Although the Nakamichi machines were arguably the best in their field the cassette was never more than the MP3 of its era; convenient, portable but definitely not hi-fi.
Good cassette decks made the hassle of reel to reel no longer necessary for home recording but anyone interested in reliable sound quality still used reel to reel. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 16 2006 at 05:35
| You don't know what you say. Big Nakas explode all the Cd sources you have heard. It goes at 30khz and is far more dynamic! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 16 2006 at 05:42
|
^ *You* don't know what you're saying - CD is vastly superior in dynamics (undisputable fact), and 30khz ... well, if you believe in astrology you might also believe that the human ear can hear such high frequencies. But I'm sure that it cannot, and that the tape decks could *not* reproduce such frequencies reliably. Why should they - there are no sources which contain these frequencies!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Fitzcarraldo
Date Posted: October 16 2006 at 05:46
You can have one... there's one for sale on eBay now: http://cgi.ebay.com/SOUND-BURGER-PORTABLE-TURNTABLE_W0QQitemZ280037010581QQihZ018QQcategoryZ3281QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem A brand new Sound Burger sold on eBay yesterday - it was still wrapped in its original plastic bag. Not cheap, though. The last time I looked the price was $250. Several manufacturers made micro-portable record players; here's another model, this one from 1961:  The Wondergram Record Player, weighing in at less than 2 lbs. Transistorised, and ran on 1.5 V batteries. ------------- http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=326" rel="nofollow - Read reviews by Fitzcarraldo |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 16 2006 at 05:52
You're a dwarf in music and you have never heard nothing. Numeric can't reproduce ANY frequency correctly because of the gaps and it even adds supersonic noise. So, one time for all, please SHUT UP!!!!! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 16 2006 at 06:12
I have heard a lot and in fact I can play a lot - I played in a band and I even recorded an album. My ears are working perfectly fine, and I can hear all the subtleties that trained ears are supposed to hear.
you didn't even bother to read the article which heavyfreight added to his post - it explains in detail why even vinyl has problems like quantisation. And the supersonic noise - it is filtered out and converted to white noise, again much like what happens when playing vinyls (thermic/electro-mechanic effects). Resistance is really futile here ... you're only making a fool of yourself with your childish ignorance of facts. You might as well say that the sky is green!
Sorry, but I will continue to post my opinion here - as you will too. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: October 16 2006 at 06:52
If ancient but working grammophones cost ca. 40€, I wouldn't buy such fragile plastic player with more than 50$ absolute, and it would be better to function properly. I believe that such Sound Burgers were manufactured in smaller quantities. Neat looking device though, but some people try to ask unbeliable prices of anything in these web auctions. It's ofcourse possible, that at customer who has millions of dollars money, spots such and wants it immetiadly, without caring about the cost.
|
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: October 16 2006 at 06:55
I heard somewhere, that there would be some kind of "joke" in the end of some BEATLES album, that being a high pitched volume beyond human ears, but which some animals like dogs could hear. I'm not sure if this true. I'm a bit deaf and I don't often even hear proprely what people speak!
 "WHAT!"  |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: October 16 2006 at 07:27
Ah yes - but with modern digital manipulation of images, the sky can be green; in the old days, you had to depend on unreliable & illegal chemical stimuli to see a green sky... 
Sorry - different argument for a different thread - pray continue. ------------- 
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 16 2006 at 07:34
|
I don't care about your smoky THEORIES. The fact that your play 3 notes of NOISE with a bunch of friends doesn't mean nothing, if it's in the same vein that the craps you add to the site. You should not be here on this adult site, but rather on a teenage forum for "metal heads".
|
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: October 16 2006 at 07:56
|
Please, gentelmen. I think this thread is running off topic and towards hostilities.
As I recorded tracks from my CREAM "Farewell concert 1968" DVD, and also from their BBC sessions to make a compilation to my car, the soundwaves did't have curves, but the whole thing was a solid bar filling all frequence levels. I think that this made the CD to sound very violent, as I listen it with max vol in my car it realy locks my ears, so I can't hear anything for awhile after leaving the car.
There's also lots of echo in the live recording form the Albert Hall acoustics, I believe.We have reached bit similar sound in our rehearshal room, by putting the record level of our Telefunken magnetofone as too high, and we have taken off the softening acoustic elements from the wall. We have also thought of making a recording in the staircase to get big echoes!
|
Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: October 16 2006 at 08:29
Not sure if I'm right here but I always found that descent into insults and threats indicated that someone was losing the arguement. ------------- When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 16 2006 at 08:36
A couple of things:
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 16 2006 at 11:14
Any more of that type of thing Oliver and you can expect to hear from me. Please keep it civil and friendly.
|
Posted By: Solo
Date Posted: October 19 2006 at 20:36
I don't know how a cassette could possibly replay at 30khz.
I have a half inch 8 track that records at 15 IPS and still can only get to about 21khz.
That being said, you're wrong. In the 70's the worlds best 2" 30 ips machines could capture frequencies well into 48khz. Caputring frequencies that high is absolutely essential in creating something known as the hypersonic effect, which adds much missing detail and prestine quality which is missing from today's technology.
I'm NOT partial to analog machine JUST because it's 70's : keep in mind the very first compact disc as we know it was unveiled in 1979 - obivously a technology that had been in the works for many years prior.
CD's fail. Analog wins. That's all there is to it.
|
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: October 19 2006 at 20:42
|
I appreciate Lo - fi as music genre. Low Barlow and the bunch. Sky presents different colour to different species. I like concepts behind art forms, since art is made out of that. Format, unless it is really really cheap, I don't care much about.
------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 20 2006 at 02:49
Why do you have to be so absolute about this? If you believe that adding inaudible frequencies enhances the audible quality of a recording, then you're free to do so ... but please don't expect me to adopt that theory. BTW: SACD/DVD-Audio can reproduce frequencies in that range ... if this feature is responsible for the "analog effect", then how do you explain that audiophiles still don't accept that format? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: October 20 2006 at 05:39
|
Originally posted by Easy Livin Any more of that type of thing Oliver and you can expect to hear from me. Please keep it civil and friendly.
.....we should rename this section "tech wars"
MF ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 20 2006 at 10:21
|
^ with episodes like: "The Digital Menace" "The Revenge of the Objectivists" "The Subjectivists Strike Back" "The Return of the Analog" ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: October 20 2006 at 10:32
Review episodes: "The Return of the Analog" 
|
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: October 20 2006 at 10:54
|
"Digital strikes back" is in post-production. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
