Indeed it was Sir, as I can attest.
Not going to give up my vinyl. There is no way I can get a CD of most of my vinyl, it's both old and "unusual".
I call it people who care about the music from before 1990.
Fair points, for sure, but I am speaking (or trying to and perhaps failing) in the objective sense of what I think people mean when they say sounds better, but I do take your point. I think I would react less to these big claims if vinyl fans would consistently acknowledge what the science tells us and couch their words by qualifying claims such as you did. If they would just say I love the coloured sound that vinyl playback introduces and for me it is better, that I could live with, no problem at all. Same goes for those who love valve amplification. I have owned an OTL amp for instance with great tubes and I also enjoyed it, but I knew that it was not technically superior, or more true to the recording than my solid state integrated. Rant over.
Oh I understand entirely. I've heard things like "no bandwidth limits" (said by nobody who ever cut a record), "infinite resolution" (said by nobody who ever measured the noise floor of the best vinyl under the best conditions), "warmer" (whatever that means), better dynamic range (ibid) and so on.
So funny that you say this, and it does give me some pause and suggests that I need to walk my statements back at least a little. I myself also yearn for less hypercompression. I do love dynamic range, but moreso I think I would like a middle of the road approach where the compression is not done to the absolute limit. I am also not a fan of those overly dynamic recordings where you need 500 watts of power to reach a satisfying SPL that translates scale and bass impact.
Yeah Two Against Nature is well done. I think it rates DR14 to DR18 depending upon which version. The DVD-A version rates highest in this regard. On that album they supposedly used only Shure KSM 32 microphones and those are good microphones. More transparent to the source than most microphones.
Not to be pedantic with someone far more educated than I, but seeing as the big Baroque revival was in the 1990's, I say it's more about people who care about recordings before 1990. I'm someone who does, but I'd leave the archiving of such stuff to those I consider more expert. I'm done with the vinyl game though I do care about recorded history and recording history. I'd point out the JSP CD box of Louis Armstrong's Hot Fives and Sevens as an example of the work of someone who deeply cares about music of the past. I was lucky enough to find a very playable copy of the same material on a Columbia needledrop LP of the fifties, but I'd say the JSP transfers are better. Even more to the point, there are the centennial transfers of Robert Johnson's 78s, archival work that changed the perception of that artist's sound. That involved technical procedures not available for previous transfer work.
I think was at least partly fueled by the culmination of the period-instrument movement, which can be traced back to the 1940s, but really only broke through into mainstream performance once players had mastered the subtly different techniques these instruments required. Anyone hearing one of Harnoncourt's squeaky renditions from the '60s could probably sympathise with Robert Layton's view that "We need a revival of period strings as much as we need a revival of period dentistry". But by the late '80s things were a lot different and it did offer a valid reason to go out and buy all-new recordings of repertoire one already owned.
Things have moved even farther. I'm hearing performances of "early Musicke" with more grace and style recently, not to mention audio capture:
I didn't know that information, but I'm not surprised. Thank you. The track Negative Girl is consistently a test track of mine (plus I really enjoy it). Great album for sure.
