> > First off, vinyl has a greater dynamic range (75db) and frequency
>response 7Hz to 25kHz resulting in that more detailed, nuanced and "warm"
>sound.
>Actually, that's not true. A CD has a hypothetical dynamic range up around
>96 db, which is a damn site more than a vinyl record.
Touche...perhaps I was off a bit on the dynamic range bit, I was going off
an article on vinyl mastering. I still believe that vinyl from 48mhz or
analogue reproduces a more detailed sound, it may even be on an unconcious
level...our brains and ears pick up a lot more information than we directly
perceive.
>As for frequency response, the human ear can only hear from about 20 cycles
>per second up to about 20,000 (that's a little kid who's never listened to
>any music on headphones.... all the tossers on *this* list, like me, would
>be lucky to hear anything much above 18kHz.) I'll wager CD's have a much
>flatter frequency response across the dynamic range as well.
I'm one of those tossers...and its not really at the high end that I notice
a difference. its very much at the low end...at a very high volume, on a
proper *system*. There are also a lot of sounds that we here rather than
feel...
>>[blue note to two track tape...]
>Well, if it's so great, how come (hardly) anyone does it that way anymore?
>My Rhodes piano is great, too, but I can see why they don't make 'em
>anymore.
How come nothing "live" sounds quite that good anymore? Same goes for the
Rhodes!
I just love the sound of the recording for albums such as Art Blakey's "Big
Beat" and Horace Silver's "Song for My Father"...and to this that it has not
been digitally remixed is impressive.
>
>A lot of great music would not have been realized (think Headhunters, or
>Bitches Brew or On The Corner as early
examples) if recording techniques did not advance rapidly through the mid
'60's and onward.
>
Definately great albums, but the Headhunters records really begin to exhibit
the beginnings of that overproduced sound that often ruins contemporary jazz
recordings recordings for me. (Don't get me wrong "Thrust" is the jam!)
Anyway, thats part of why we are here! Because the sampled, bedroom produced
records sound more "live", more real, than the live recordings. I think that
a lot of recording engineers have become so obsessed with cleaning up a
recording that they forget the real world is dirty...why clean it up so
much...just use a synthesizer.
> >
> > The difference is can be visualized by comparing an actually
>photographic print to a photographic reproduction in a magazine. If you
>look at a photo in a magazine it looks nice, but if you look very close you
>will see that it is composed of a fine pattern of dots. This is a
>convienent way to fool the eye just as a CD is a convienent way to fool the
>ear at 44.1 million samples per second and for all due puposes its probably
>the best way for most people.
>True, but 44.1 million samples is a *lot* of samples. The cool thing about
>CD's is you can scratch 'em all to hell (like my U.F.O. discs) and they
>will
>still play without any additional surface noise (or they won't much play at
>all, in which case they make a pretty good non-lethal shaolin weapon.)
Or a coaster or a rear-view mirror ornament (?)... thats why its best for
most people and most situations...even for some djs...but I'd rather have a
skipping record than a skipping CD...digital glitches and distortion suck!
>
> > This is because most producers, who know what they are doing and have
>the resources, use a DAT which has a greater dynamic range than a CD, a
>higher sample rate 48mhz/sec (this small bit makes a difference) and
>sometimes a greater bit depth. Combine this better than CD quality with a
>solid knowledge of vinyl mastering and you get better sounding records.
>This is not always true either. A digital source that is recorded at 48khz
>has to be reduced to 44.1 to be played on a consumer CD. This means the
>digital wordlength has to be "truncated" and this can actually be a bad
>thing.
True, true. BUT, I was not talking about going from DAT to CD but DAT to
vinyl! No dithering there! Just better than CD sound direct to vinyl...this
is how modern records sound so damn good. Also the perfection of the 12"
single...which was only invented in 1973 (? philly soul records ?) has
allowed producers to create records with much higher volumes than album
length vinyl. The europeans have really pushed the art of the 12" single to
max for sound quality.
But if you don't have 10.99 for an import 12", a compressed MP3 is not a bad
alternative ;)
Music nerds unite!
Chris
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 03 2001 - 18:43:17 CEST