|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
100.40.104.66
In Reply to: RE: "equal or superior" posted by ahendler on April 22, 2014 at 09:56:06
I said that I was disinclined to participate in such discussions (vinyl vs. digital).
I don't believe I told anyone else what they could or could not discuss.
If I did, please point it out to me by cutting and pasting.
Vinyl versus digital is an analogue of discussions about the unassailable total world-bestriding greatness of every last little piece of potboiling music an angry guy named Louie Beethoven wrote.
The way that works is, (1) people subjectively--totally subjectively--decide to decide upon which characteristics make for greatness in a composer. (2) They then totally subjectively decide upon those characteristics, such as the ability to eke the greatest amount of repetitious argumentative music out of the smallest possible germ of a phrase, that Beethoven had more of than anyone else, ever. (3) They then look around and see who "OBJECTIVELY" does the best job of meeting their totally subjective criteria.
Surprise! Beethoven is "objectively" the best!
The other gentleman first of all has a financial investment in vinyl equipment and an expectation of earning money by cutting lacquers. Good for him. But that's hardly a double-blind test, is it? He also discounts ticks and pops as non-issues; whereas some persons of discernment and taste will find ticks and pops to be deal-breakers. (See the flowchart above.)
And lest anyone think I am being a cad, how many times have I been told that the ability to buy gear at dealer cost minus rep's commission FATALLY compromises my judgment? Gimme a break.
Nonody really knows how a microphone sounds, we can only approximate an idea by using it with various mic preamps. Many pieces of gear lean out sound, other pieces of gear fatten it up. One engineer told me that even if Plangent Processes was totally 100% effective and not with any unintended side effects, people who have grown to love the sound of those master tapes recorded with all kinds of mechanical intermodulation generation and played back with the same, will find the REAL, not clouded-up sound of the master tape "too thin."
At the end of the day, no camera is perfect for all purposes, which is why fine-art photography is an art, and the same can be said for recording music and playing it back.
I have no problem with anyone's claiming that they prefer LPs and I have no problem with anyone's claiming that an LP for them brings them more deeply into the music--as long as they realize that there is some Vaseline on the lens. Because if there wasn't any Vaseline on the lens, ALL turntables, tone arms, and cartridges would sound alike, would they not? So, you can pick your poison but I'll pick my own, thanks.
Just please don't hang noodles from my ears by saying that analog is more "accurate," because I think that all that means is, "Analog is accurate insofar as I subjectively decide to define accuracy, magnifying artifacts I enjoy listening to, and ignoring artifacts that are best ignored."
Great, fine. I love LPs too--for nostalgia, etc. There's a warmth there that very much might not have existed when the musicians were playing... . Honestly, I think that both the SMMTM LPs are a little warmer than real, but nobody has ever died from listening to them, and I am as happy as anyone is to make a virtue of necessity. And I did some page-turning on that session, so I heard at least some of the sound from up close, far closer than an audience or even the mic array.
BTW, I am equally dismissive of those who flatly state that, "Digital sounds better."
Really? A $239 Tascam chip-based 24/96 shirtpocket recorder sounds better than a fully-restored Studer A80 with Cello electronics running 30 ips half-inch two track?"
Give me a break on that, too.
JM
Follow Ups:
Asylum readers need to put this on their bulletin boards:
"Many pieces of gear lean out sound, other pieces of gear fatten it up. One engineer told me that even if Plangent Processes was totally 100% effective and not with any unintended side effects, people who have grown to love the sound of those master tapes recorded with all kinds of mechanical intermodulation generation and played back with the same, will find the REAL, not clouded-up sound of the master tape "too thin."
might be aghast at how you'd label Bach's. Or Chopin's. I wish you'd bring this up in Music. THAT would be an interesting discussion.
Edits: 04/22/14
The other gentleman first of all has a financial investment in vinyl equipment and an expectation of earning money by cutting lacquers. Good for him. But that's hardly a double-blind test, is it? He also discounts ticks and pops as non-issues; whereas some persons of discernment and taste will find ticks and pops to be deal-breakers. (See the flowchart above.)
If you are referring to me as the 'other gentleman' you have it wrong. Really wrong. It seems as if you only breezed over my post without really reading it.
So here is some background. I acquired the lathe and its associated cutter hardware about 23 years ago at low cost. Further, the lathe is now installed in a recording studio space that does not rely on the work of the lathe at all. IOW we don't have to make a profit with it to operate it. Refurbishing the unit and sorting out how it works has been quite an education and many myths similar to ones you purport have died along the way.
Finally, I don't discount ticks and pops as non-issues, what I stated was that the behavior of a phono preamp can enhance them. Now if you don't have a preamp that messes with the ticks and pops the result is far more benign; with very relaxed treatment of the LP the ticks remain quiet and people often comment about how silent my records and system seem to be. I have experienced many preamps that emphasize ticks and pops and they can indeed drive you nuts.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: