Well, Sal, I didn't mean to challenge your reading ability.There Rick, I fixed it for you.
No need for 10 long paragraphs of detail.
Rick "you could have skipped the first 9 paragraphs" Denney
Well, Sal, I didn't mean to challenge your reading ability.There Rick, I fixed it for you.
No need for 10 long paragraphs of detail.
This has been said during several cycles of this thread.
Let's summarize what we have learned:
.
.
.
4. Time passes and CDs are introduced. Most companies just encode the digital file right off the stereo master.
Okay, let's change that to "at best the CD was encoded off the stereo master, but could well have been encoded from downstream production masters."Nope. When the CD era starts most companies (the ones rereleasing 'popular' music rather than classical) transfer whatever tape is readily available to them. This is 'a' production master but not 'the' original mixdown master(s), which has usually been stored away deeper in some vault (if it can be found at all).
The vogue for 'original master tape' sourcing didn't happen until the late 80s, and tragically, was quickly overlapped by the vogue for 'loudness'.
Okay, let's change that to "at best the CD was encoded off the stereo master, but could well have been encoded from downstream production masters."
Rick "just trying to summarize for those unwilling to read the whole thread before jumping into it" Denney
Thanks for the summary. I can also report this as I have seen countless times how the waveform on modern heavy rock CDs is a so-called brickwall. This was compared by me with the same release on a CD from around 1990, where the dynamic peaks are visible unlike modern antics.Since that time, choices made during mixing and mastering, in some genres, have resulted in excessively compressed versions. This compression has been reportedly imposed on some vintage recordings that were digitized afresh in the 90's and later, resulting in "remastered" versions that are compressed compared to the original. Thus, there are reports that some recent remastered releases are more compressed than the versions on vinyl, the limited dynamic range of the vinyl notwithstanding. This is not because of any technical limitation, but rather reflects a change in the objectives of the mastering engineers and the companies they work for. It is possible, therefore, that an LP recording could demonstrate greater dynamic range than a later CD or digital release. As I have said, I can only think of one album in my collection where that seemed to be the case.
It's a funny thing, isn't it? Few people have the time or energy to read 100 pages from scratch, but what is the etiquette regarding jumping in? Plenty of people end up posting comments that are the 5th, 6th, 12th rehash of what has been dealt with pages back. I don't know how we can keep long threads productive without endless repetition.Rick "just trying to summarize for those unwilling to read the whole thread before jumping into it" Denney
I would have though this thread would have died a long time ago... I won't sustain it with post any longer ..Can I just comment that the thread title, does surely invite comment from people who hold a contrary view?
’Tis the very definition of clickbait.Can I just comment that the thread title, does surely invite comment from people who hold a contrary view?
Awesome. One of my favorites! Also great is The Mysterious Film World Of Bernard Herrmann. The way he recreated the humming texture of a bees wings (for the giant bees in Mysterious Island) with the string section/woodwinds was remarkable.
One of the things I love about the Herrmann soundtracks is they tend to be recorded in a very vivid manner.
Have you been to any of the clubs on Frenchman St.? The acoustics are…. Not great. The music still is.I remember once, I was talking to Duke Ellington telling him how I love his music and can't wait to have it distorted for a record so I can enjoy it as he intended.
He said; that's not how I intended! Why don't you come down to the club and hear me while I play?
Oh, Duke... And miss on all the IGD, clicks and pops and the photo of you?! Nah, I like it more natural, warm and full of dynamics!
Boy, are you on something? - Said the sad Duke. You can't have more dynamics than sitting in the front row...
But, Duke... Oh, Duke, Duke but... With out my cartridge it would feel like you're not even in the club!
Kid, seriously now, I'm not summoned through some tiny stones, come down and hear me!
I said, I'm too mindful when I listen to music, that's how I found out that the true soul of your music appears only with all the compression, cracks and pops, distortions, wow and flutter of a record. Oh, and I get to look a photo of you. Did I mention that? Anyway, I can't come, I'm having my TT incarnate Benny Goodman in my living room with my new Shunyata and Sumiko combo.
Well, if you can't, at least get the best recording of my session.
And that's how deluded poor ol' Duke was.
Humm, I don't know Bob?If I were to become serious I would suggest the “recording” is what really matters. The playback medium becomes a “choice”, but if the recording “sucks” the playback will suck with any playback choice.
I think it is obvious you do not care for vinyl playback. That is perfectly fine by me. I happen to have vinyl playback, CD playback, music server playback, and if I pay for a subscription - capability for streaming playback. I enjoy any playback of music I like - by like I mean it has to be a song I actually enjoy first and foremost. Secondary is the quality of the recording. For example if I had the best recording of a "rap" song I would not listen to it. You see - I primarily do not enjoy rap music with the exception of Will Smith doing "Men in Black". If I want convenience I will be using the music server. If I feel like picking a vinyl lp out then I will do that. I do have fun with vinyl - the process of setup and adjustments that make changes I can actually easily hear. I know it's not for everyone.Humm, I don't know Bob?
The problem then becomes, if you have the best recording ever mastered, would you chose to listen to it on the severely compromised vinyl media, or a digital file which is a sonic mirror of the source?.
Then you have to ask yourself, no matter the quality of the recording, do you want to hear it with all of vinyls weaknesses and distortion piled on top? Or as cleanly as possible?
For an audiophile I would think the answer to either question is obvious.
Humm, I don't know Bob?
The problem then becomes, if you have the best recording ever mastered, would you chose to listen to it on the severely compromised vinyl media, or a digital file which is a sonic mirror of the source?
Multi channels may well be the future. However, I have lots of stereo recordings and zero multi-channel. From my personal point of view it makes no sense. I would have to purchase additional speakers, amplifiers, and multi channel music. Someone starting out should consider that option. I just don't have the budget or a place for extra speakers. My home theater is the same as my stereo and is 2 channels plus a sub to make the room shake. Probably need a different house as well to make it happen. Now if I were to win the lottery - have to buy tickets though - I could have both options.Plus, how many channels of playback would the best recording ever mastered have? This is where vinyl really gags at the starting line.
Toole’s “A Philosophical Perspective” essay (in the first edition of his book) explains this most knowledgeably and eloquently, in part:-
“The truth is that no amount of refinement in audio devices can solve the problem; there is no missing ingredient or tweak that can, outside of the imagination, make these (playback) experiences seem real. The process is itself fundamentally flawed in its extreme simplicity. The miracle is that it works as well as it does. The “copy” is sufficiently similar to the “original” that our perceptual processes are gratified, up to a point, but the “copy” is not the same as the “original.” Sterne (2003) explains that “at a very basic, functional level, sound-reproduction technologies need a great deal of human assistance if they are to work, that is, to ‘reproduce’ sound” (p. 246).
“Sound reproduction is therefore significantly about working with the natural human ability to “fill in the blanks”, providing the right clues to trigger the perception of a more complete illusion. It is absolutely not a mechanical “capture, store, and reproduce” process. In addition to the music itself, there is now, and probably always will be, a substantial human artistic, craftsmanship, component to the creation of musical product.
“…And, in the context of sound recording, “far from being a reproduction of the actual event, the recording was a ‘re-creation’” (Sterne, p. 242). The goal is not imitation but the creation of specific listener experiences. This certainly exists dramatically in the directional and spatial experiences in reproduced sounds.
“For decades, society has been conditioned to derive pleasure from first single-channel sound (mono) and then two channels (stereo). Only recently has music been offered in multichannel formats that permit a somewhat realistic directional and spatial panorama. Impressed by the novelty that music and movies were available on demand, society appeared to lower its expectations and adapted to the inadequate formats. A great deal of enjoyment was had by all. So complete is this form of adaptation that significant new technical developments must go through a “break-in” period before there is acceptance. …those who grew up with mono often argued that stereo was an unnecessary complication, adding little value. (I remember—I was there!) The same is now happening with respect to multichannel audio schemes. Part of the “break in” applies to the audio professionals, who must learn how to use the new formats with discretion and taste.”
(my emphasis)
No doubt: the best recordings ever are, and will forever be, in multichannel playback formats…and vinyl has no play in this game. It cannot do it. It and its recordings exists on a lower tier. As Toole explains above, we have been conditioned to be pretty happy with pretty little.
The key issue preventing everyone from acknowledging digital MCH playback productions as the pinnacle of home audio, is that a significant portion of audiophiles have an anti-digital, anti-MCH, anti-progress attitude (they are stuck at the start of Toole’s ‘break-in period’) that is blocking them and making them literally incapable (sighted) of having the experience that is universally (proven, tested, in controlled listening, read the book) preferred as a fully superior perceptual experience of the sound waves themselves. The fact that a lot of recording engineers are playing to this, is a hand-on-wallet betrayal to the potential of their profession. But hey, if ‘vinyl crumbs’ is what the consumers want more than five-star degustation, then give them their crumbs, and charge them a 500% premium for the pleasure.
Cheers
Plus, how many channels of playback would the best recording ever mastered have? This is where vinyl really gags at the starting line.
…
Vinyl never has, never will, and frankly cannot ever sound, at its most basic implementation better than digital. In today's world, a $100 DAC easily beats vinyl on any measure anyone would like to choose. Heck, a $10 can.
…