- Joined
- Oct 11, 2019
- Messages
- 1,839
- Likes
- 2,757
Gotta beg to differ. Jonathan Richman was a genius and The Modern Lovers were an extremely important part of the NYC scene in the mid-late 70’s, i.e., the birth of New Wave.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
CD vs hi-res
- Thread starter David Harper
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 3,739
- Likes
- 6,449
I was being humorous. Which was certainly Richman. Serious in an un-serious way, presenting a sort of low-level 'autistic' but fun-loving persona--at least in those early Modern Lovers days. Singing about rock n roll leprechauns, the joys of hearing the ice-cream truck (compare Jan and Dean's earlier Popsicle), the beautiful mystery of a summer morning when 'flies are not yet flying and little nits are knitting and knats natting..."
Was he a genius? I'll reserve that description for Bach. But he was sincere and clever in those tunes. I have no idea what he's up to these days.
Also, I was mostly referencing the idea of hi-rez. His Rock n Roll with the Modern Lovers was garage band quality. It fit the music for sure. But you don't need extra digits and extreme bandwidth for that sort of thing. Do you?
FWIW, my copy of the record (from an off the wall label called Beserkley) was about the poorest sonic quality record I owned. A lot of snaps, crackles and pops. This had to be around 1977 or so. Maybe '78. A lot of records from those days had horrible quality. Now, you sort of might expect that from Beserkley, but you got that with Deutsche Grammophon and all the rest, too. So I guess it was just a 'feature'.
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
I'm a big fan. For anyone who somehow doesn't know, <https://www.allmusic.com/artist/jonathan-richman-mn0000266255/biography> <https://www.allmusic.com/album/the-modern-lovers-mw0000654368>I was being humorous. Which was certainly Richman. Serious in an un-serious way, presenting a sort of low-level 'autistic' but fun-loving persona--at least in those early Modern Lovers days. Singing about rock n roll leprechauns, the joys of hearing the ice-cream truck (compare Jan and Dean's earlier Popsicle), the beautiful mystery of a summer morning when 'flies are not yet flying and little nits are knitting and knats natting..."
Was he a genius? I'll reserve that description for Bach. But he was sincere and clever in those tunes. I have no idea what he's up to these days.
Also, I was mostly referencing the idea of hi-rez. His Rock n Roll with the Modern Lovers was garage band quality. It fit the music for sure. But you don't need extra digits and extreme bandwidth for that sort of thing. Do you?
FWIW, my copy of the record (from an off the wall label called Beserkley) was about the poorest sonic quality record I owned. A lot of snaps, crackles and pops. This had to be around 1977 or so. Maybe '78. A lot of records from those days had horrible quality. Now, you sort of might expect that from Beserkley, but you got that with Deutsche Grammophon and all the rest, too. So I guess it was just a 'feature'.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2019
- Messages
- 1,839
- Likes
- 2,757
Awesome post! Just had to give you props.I was being humorous. Which was certainly Richman. Serious in an un-serious way, presenting a sort of low-level 'autistic' but fun-loving persona--at least in those early Modern Lovers days. Singing about rock n roll leprechauns, the joys of hearing the ice-cream truck (compare Jan and Dean's earlier Popsicle), the beautiful mystery of a summer morning when 'flies are not yet flying and little nits are knitting and knats natting..."
Was he a genius? I'll reserve that description for Bach. But he was sincere and clever in those tunes. I have no idea what he's up to these days.
Also, I was mostly referencing the idea of hi-rez. His Rock n Roll with the Modern Lovers was garage band quality. It fit the music for sure. But you don't need extra digits and extreme bandwidth for that sort of thing. Do you?
FWIW, my copy of the record (from an off the wall label called Beserkley) was about the poorest sonic quality record I owned. A lot of snaps, crackles and pops. This had to be around 1977 or so. Maybe '78. A lot of records from those days had horrible quality. Now, you sort of might expect that from Beserkley, but you got that with Deutsche Grammophon and all the rest, too. So I guess it was just a 'feature'.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 3,739
- Likes
- 6,449
I think some people just didn't understand what he was doing. They looked down on it because in their opinion it wasn't 'deep' or 'meaningful', or otherwise 'serious' music. In the words of that Dire Straits guy, "It wasn't what they called rock 'n roll." It certainly wasn't what anyone expected.
But those without prejudice, who listened openly to the 'feeling' the group put into, for instance, the 'simple' Chinese folk song, along with his depiction of innocence (perhaps you could call it naivete) of childhood, and blossoming adolescence, knew the score.
For all of that, it remains one of my favorite records.
Last edited:
mhardy6647
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,374
- Likes
- 24,588
Just want to put in another good word for Jonathan Richman (avec or sans the Modern Lovers). Great stuff.
Waxx
Major Contributor
I know from my pro audio days that we were always working in 24bit and the target sample rate or a doubling of it (so mostly 44.1kHz or 88.2kHz for music, and 48kHz or 96kHz for post production). That is good enough for us humans.
And on this subject (and as this is a science review site) this paper from Dan Lavry, a digital audio specialist (and very reputed builder of pro audio ad and da convertors) is very interesting: http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf
He claims that all samplerated above 96kHz are bullshit, but that 24bit would be better than 16bit. He still sells dac's that do higher, but that is because his customers demand it. His hifi stuff is basicly the same as his pro audio stuff, and expensive (too expensive if you see what is now on the market) but very good and very popular. Quiet a few (high reputation) mastering studio's that i know down here do all their conversion with Lavry equipment.
And on this subject (and as this is a science review site) this paper from Dan Lavry, a digital audio specialist (and very reputed builder of pro audio ad and da convertors) is very interesting: http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf
He claims that all samplerated above 96kHz are bullshit, but that 24bit would be better than 16bit. He still sells dac's that do higher, but that is because his customers demand it. His hifi stuff is basicly the same as his pro audio stuff, and expensive (too expensive if you see what is now on the market) but very good and very popular. Quiet a few (high reputation) mastering studio's that i know down here do all their conversion with Lavry equipment.
Pro audio has different requirements than home audio. For the latter, 24 bits is a waste, and 48k SR is more than sufficient.
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
Agreed. It's a shame that the CD standard is not 48 k as that would make the reconstruction filter easier (20-24 k from flat to full attenuation instead of 20-22 k), but it seems that many aren't bothered by "incorrect" filters anyway. It's also the standard for video soundtracks so would simplify the requirements for DAC design.
A shame? 40 years after the same fantasies
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
Please explain "fantasies".
A psychoanalyst could explain.
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
I want you to explain what you meant. Same fantasies as what?
I used to sell top end hifi. I still love music and hifi gear. And I'm a scientist, an ecologist, so I understand experimental design.
When selling Hifi we did blind comparisons. we didn't have the resources to do double blind. We consistently found differences between CD players, but not between CD and Hi Res. So my conclusion is it is that its the CD performance at the 16 bit and analogue implementation that can make a difference. generally, I'd say buy marantz first, sony 2nd to get the best CD performance. Of course that is subjective. Rotel and Nakamici were excellent, we were always looking at value for money, marantz and sony were excellent, Rotel were sublime but didn't make the really top end gear. Frankly I think the analogue implementation is most important and the obsession with digital is a wank (in comparison, the variation between digital implementation is minimal, between the analogue implementation is far more important, so frankly much of the debate about digital is bullshit)
.
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
If you mean that what some old men (I'm one!) claim they can hear are fantasies, then I agree.
It could, but you'd have to match (analog) output levels before you could start saying why.
(Apart from the SBT vs DBT problem.)
Hatto
Active Member
Hearing differences between 16-bit and 24-bit is a strech but a remote possibility. However there is absolutely no audible difference between analog signals re-constructed from 44kHz or 192kHz sampled digital encodings.
Claiming to hear any difference above 24-bit or 44kHz is just imagination at best.
Claiming to hear any difference above 24-bit or 44kHz is just imagination at best.
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
In case anyone's missed it, Archimago has completed another of his 16-bit vs 24-bit blind tests <https://archimago.blogspot.com/2023/05/results-internet-blind-test-of-24-bit.html> Results as expected.
yes we matched volume levels of course with a noise meter, as I worked at the EPA at the same time
Similar threads
