Justdafactsmaam
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2023
- Messages
- 1,282
- Likes
- 998
My apologies. I deleted the post because of the mix upApologies, I was addressing Newman's failed attempt.
My apologies. I deleted the post because of the mix upApologies, I was addressing Newman's failed attempt.
I believe this is HIGHLY dependent on the artist. Many artists know the sound and performance they want, and work tirelessly, and knowledgeably, to attain it. And this is not new at all.I think musicians are too rarely concerned with the sonic nuance of the recording, for their intent (in the sense of art) to be considered present in the final recording. (This link also refutes your argument in #707 that artist signoff on vinyl test pressings in bygone days means those recordings best document the artistic intent of the musicians.)
...
For sure, sometimes for the good, sometimes no so good,I believe this is HIGHLY dependent on the artist. Many artists know the sound and performance they want, and work tirelessly, and knowledgeably, to attain it. And this is not new at all.
Speaking from a film production perspective. I think folks who are not experienced directly in creating content, be it music or film have this perception that what comes out is 100% preconceived and 100% executed as preconceived.I believe this is HIGHLY dependent on the artist. Many artists know the sound and performance they want, and work tirelessly, and knowledgeably, to attain it. And this is not new at all.
I was thinking more in terms of audible wow on piano, and that continual background noise that obscures studio ambience. Audible distortion really only an issue when they put songs with high dynamics at the end of the side. Which isn't that often but once is too many..That’s a gross exaggeration of inherent vinyl distortion.
.
I agree. I have seen band members arguing over the finished product more than once. Some like it, some don't, or sometimes no-one likes it. But it's done, no going back.Speaking from a film production perspective. I think folks who are not experienced directly in creating content, be it music or film have this perception that what comes out is 100% preconceived and 100% executed as preconceived.
Nothing can be further from the truth. There are happy accidents and dreaded fails. Schedules and budgets dictate a great deal of choices. Artists’ intents are often nothing like audiences would imagine and are rarely fully realized in the final product.
Preferences for euphonic colorations aside. Sometimes there isn’t even a decent digital alternativeI was thinking more in terms of audible wow on piano, and that continual background noise that obscures studio ambience. Audible distortion really only an issue when they put songs with high dynamics at the end of the side. Which isn't that often but once is too many.
I play a record, really enjoying it. Suddenly it sticks, or jumps. That didn't happen before. Now I have to take it off and clean it (yes, I have a proper machine for that) but the experience is ruined.
I confess I don't get why anyone lives with those issues when there's an alternative, but I accept that they do and that their happy to do so.
This is one reason I find original pressings of popular older music released on LP's interesting. It was not the "master tape" nor the "artists intent" that sold tens of millions of copies, rather it was what ended up, for better or worse, on the LP. To me the LP is the "original art". I know others don't agree with this and I can understand why and in addition to old LP's I always try to track down a good digital version of my favorite music as well. Often times I prefer the digital version but still listen to the original from time to time for perspective and fun. I believe a lot of the acrimony on this thread comes not from "digital" vs "vinyl" technical arguments or preferences but rather it is between those that believe technical accuracy and practicality define the goal of the hobby vs those that define the hobby more as maximising their enjoyment of listening to recorded music that can include things not related to the accuracy of the actual sound waves.I agree. I have seen band members arguing over the finished product more than once. Some like it, some don't, or sometimes no-one likes it. But it's done, no going back.
I believe a lot of the acrimony on this thread comes not from "digital" vs "vinyl" technical arguments or preferences but rather it is between those that believe technical accuracy and practicality define the goal of the hobby vs those that define the hobby more as maximising their enjoyment of listening to recorded music that can include things not related to the accuracy of the actual sound waves.
I don't see the basis for this statement other than opinion without a measurement basis. I already showed that LPs have wider bandwidth than digital with distortion and noise much lower than most people realize. You would be more accurate to mention that the reason why is that most people don't bother with proper arm/cartridge setup and usually are ignorant of what sort of things winnow out the best of the LP. That is the weakness of analog!I have no disdain, I simply make the point that the analog LP is a badly flawed media to use
for high quality music reproduction in 2024. That's the facts, use whatever makes you happy.
Not in my experience. Usually the digital source file has DSP which isn't required (other than normalization) for the LP release source file.Analog > vinyl sources have to be altered to cut and press.
I don't see the basis for this statement other than opinion without a measurement basis. I already showed that LPs have wider bandwidth than digital
The other issue being that it's easier to get really deep, loud bass from a digital format.Well, no, if 'digital' means everything from 44.1 to 196kHz to DSD sample rates, that's simply not true. Moreover, have you shown that the FR across LP's bandwidth is darn near perfectly 'flat' across its bandwidth, as it is for digital formats?
And that's of course leaving aside the fact that no one is hearing any that bandwidth beyond ~22kHz
The other issue being that it's easier to get really deep, loud bass from a digital format.
I've heard that before and no idea why anyone can claim that. Pure baloney.To me the LP is the "original art". I know others don't agree with this and I can understand why and in addition to old LP's I always try to track down a good digital version of my favorite music as well.
How many master tapes of Rumours or DSOTM or LZ2 were sold to the public?I've heard that before and no idea why anyone can claim that. Pure baloney.
The "original art" was what's on the master tape. The one before it was mangled up into a cutting master to conform to the cutting lathe and playback gears weaknesses.
You can try to fly that silly fairy-tale all you like, The little kids believe them.How many master tapes of Rumours or DSOTM or LZ2 were sold to the public?
Also with many "modern digital remasters" the original LP can be "closer" to the master tape.
If someone has a different perspective than you why do you have to revert to name calling and insults? I said in my original post that not everyone agrees with my perspective that LP's can be "original art" and that I can understand that. Not sure what your point is.You can try to fly that silly fairy-tale all you like, The little kids believe them.
Alan Parsons mixed the master tape, not a distorted LP cutter.
Ask him.
Funny how most everyone in the industry disagrees with you on signal to noise and all the rest.I don't see the basis for this statement other than opinion without a measurement basis. I already showed that LPs have wider bandwidth than digital with distortion and noise much lower than most people realize. You would be more accurate to mention that the reason why is that most people don't bother with proper arm/cartridge setup and usually are ignorant of what sort of things winnow out the best of the LP. That is the weakness of analog!
Excuse me sir, your putting words in my mouth.If someone has a different perspective than you why do you have to revert to name calling and insults? I said in my original post that not everyone agrees with my perspective that LP's can be "original art" and that I can understand that. Not sure what your point is.
See your words below.Excuse me sir, your putting words in my mouth.
I didn't call you any name and don't stoop to that level.
Though I've been called plenty here in the past.
If you going to post at least attempt at an accurate response.