luckily i get booked to play music, not records ;)
Olaf
----- Original Message -----
From: terrence grant <leftalive@comcast.net>
To: <acid-jazz@ucsd.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [acid-jazz] The death of vinyl AND CDs?
> Well, first off let us not forget that even CD quality means were talking
> about sample bit rates and what not. Just very high rates...
> MP3 compression tends to add audible artifacts to the file that reveal
> themselves upon expansion. MP3s tend to be a crunchier (for lack of a
better
> word) than cd's, which themselves are brighter than records because -
> lets face it - from a sonic stand point (were just speaking of math here),
> records suck. They're technically inferior sonically, meaning that the
> spectrum of frequency response is much shorter than what you'll find on a
> digital recording. Thats why records sound warmer; why the kick is fatter
> and the high hats sit so well in the song. On the other hand, even though
a
> CD is a sampling of the frequencies of a recording, its a sampling of ALL
of
> them.
> Plus, records have a serious problem with signal degradation as the needle
> gets to the center. What this means is that by the time the record is at
the
> end (all records are like this) it sounds noticeably worse than it did at
> tthe start. It has something to do with the angle of the groove getting
> sharper.
> But records are way sexier, so who cares.
>
> > From: Erik Gaderlund <erikg@macconnect.com>
> > Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:19:15 -0700
> > To: acid-jazz@ucsd.edu
> > Subject: Re: [acid-jazz] The death of vinyl AND CDs?
> >
> > Well it's just the math. Both digital (CD) and lossy compression
> > (MP3) have trouble capturing the high frequencies well, and MP3 tends
> > to mangle them. It's just the nature of the medium. And, since the
> > consensus is that most club systems suck, it's probably just overkill
> > to be using high fidelity sources. I recently go a SACD capable DVD
> > player and having just kludged together a basic surround system was
> > playing the 'remastered' Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" and I can't tell
> > if it is much better than the CD, mostly because the engineer was a
> > bit too enthusiastic about the ability to have surround, so the
> > player are all over the place, it sound wierd being in the middle of
> > the band not directly in front of them.
> > And, since I don't have the audio system to tell the difference, I'll
> > get the music in which ever format I can get my hands on.
> >
> > erik g
> >
> > At 21:51 +0200 07/31/02, Olaf Molenveld wrote:
> >> when i play CD's over loud club systems i notice that i have to turn
down
> >> the highs and boost the bass a few dB's to get that "vinyl"
> >> characteristics....especially at loud volumes digital mediums tend to
> >> transmit very much energy in the high frequencies which fatiques both
the
> >> soundsystem and the people on the dancefloor..... this might be the
same
> >> effect some people describe to MP3's over club systems....play with the
high
> >> EQ's to get a sound which is "smoother" at loud volumes...
> >>
> >> Olaf
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: _dakati _ <dakati@postmaster.co.uk>
> >> To: t-bird <djtbird1@yahoo.com>
> >> Cc: <acid-jazz@ucsd.edu>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 9:22 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [acid-jazz] The death of vinyl AND CDs?
> >>
> >>
> >>> Are they really that bad?
> >>>
> >>> When I make a cd, the mp3s burned are typically compressed at 192 --
> >> uncompressed during the burning process.... that's the standard isn't
it?
> >> Playing in my car stereo, home stero, walkman, compared w/ the retail
music,
> >> I've never been able to differentiate the two...
> >>>
> >>> perhaps it's because I've never played an mp3 sourced compact disc in
a
> >> club.. or, maybe mp3s your playing are compressed at 96.... of course
that's
> >> gonna sound like shit.
> >>>
> >>> What about other compression rates? 320.. 256..? VBR -- I think that's
> >> what it's called... you know, the one that alternates the bit rate as
it
> >> looks like the compression is flickering between 128 and 320...
supposedly
> >> that one has the best sound...
> >>>
> >>> playing right now, at an extremely high volume: trouser jazz by mr.
> >> scruff, compressed at 192...
> >>>
> >>> sounds great!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> MP3s may sound ok on a smaller sound system, but
> >>>>> they sound for crap when
> >>>>> played on a nice system, unless they have been
> >>>>> ripped at a high bitrate.
> >>>>
> >>>> there's still some sonic funkiness because of the
> >>>> compression even at the higher bitrates. i have a
> >>>> friend that burns cds for gigs from a lot of d/l'ed
> >>>> stuff (he's a cd dj) and he's trying to figure out how
> >>>> to overcome the sound ishs.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Pioneer's new MP3 player is pretty cool,
> >>>>> though...but I'm sticking with my
> >>>>> CDJ 1000s and my Technics 1500 for now. By the way,
> >>>>> that pic of "Donnie
> >>>>> Darkwave" cracked me up. Sure, those Ipods can hold
> >>>>> lots of songs, but what
> >>>>> happens when some drunken idiot saunters over to his
> >>>>> setup, yaks it up with
> >>>>> our hero...and then while walking away, snags one of
> >>>>> the wires, yanking
> >>>>> those precious IPods to their doom? I can just see
> >>>>> one of those things
> >>>>> shattering into millions of pieces. Hell, one
> >>>>> spilled drink could wipe out
> >>>>> half his library. Technology is so fragile these
> >>>>> days...
> >>>>
> >>>> that mixer looked like a vestax pmc 05pro. do you
> >>>> think donnie works on his crab skratches?
> >>>>
> >>>>> The "anyone can be a DJ" line amused me as well.
> >>>>> True, mixing isn't
> >>>>> everything (just ask Gilles Peterson), but most
> >>>>> people couldn't program a
> >>>>> set to save their lives.
> >>>>
> >>>> even as a member of the trick(y) mixing fraternity, i
> >>>> have to contend that 99% of dj'ing is in set
> >>>> progression--mixing, scratching and their descendants
> >>>> are for transitions, and/or personalizing the records
> >>>> in the set. even w/o mixing NOT EVERYONE CAN BE A
> >>>> DJ!!
> >>>>
> >>>>> Most "DJs" I've seen these
> >>>>> days are spinning
> >>>>> trance because it's (for the most part) brainless
> >>>>> music and it's easy to
> >>>>> mix....THUMP THUMP THUMP THUMP THUMP THUMP....bah, I
> >>>>> say!
> >>>>> Just my humble opinion...
> >>>>
> >>>> while i'm no fan of trance, i think that you're being
> >>>> a little unfair. deep house is easy to mix, and it's
> >>>> not as fast as trance. so why do people really spin
> >>>> trance? crowd response. it's the same reason that a
> >>>> dj that plays all your favorite musical, underground,
> >>>> groovy hiphop when you walk in the club, will at
> >>>> peaktime switch to the jiggy...
> >>>>
> >>>> -t
> >>>>
> >>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>> Do You Yahoo!?
> >>>> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> >>>> http://health.yahoo.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Aug 01 2002 - 22:12:03 CEST