179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes
Search · subject · body · from · to
Advanced search
reset

← archive index

Re: (idm) Re: vinyl -vs- cd

4 messages · 4 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
◇ merged from 2 subjects: (idm) re: vinyl -vs- cd · (idm) stop the madness
1997-08-07 22:28james coward (idm) Re: vinyl -vs- cd
├─ 1997-08-07 19:42Mark Kolmar Re: (idm) Re: vinyl -vs- cd
└─ 1997-08-07 23:00Random Junk Re: (idm) Re: vinyl -vs- cd
└─ 1997-08-07 23:46ryan|b|shaw (idm) stop the madness
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
1997-08-07 22:28james cowardI don't usually have a lot to say on here, but, now, I feel I have to. I completely agree
From:
james coward
To:
Date:
Thu, 7 Aug 1997 17:28:23 -0500
Subject:
(idm) Re: vinyl -vs- cd
permalink · <199708072228.PAA14921@mailtod-111.bryant.webtv.net>
I don't usually have a lot to say on here, but, now, I feel I have to. I completely agree with Sire and I feel that Che is a bit out to lunch. CD units, still, cannot emulate analogue completely -no matter how hard they try/lie. If you're hearing pops & scratches on your vinyls, as well as a narrow soundscape, then, you *probably* either: 1) didn't give a damn about what you were hearing. 2) don't take care of your vinyl nearly as well as you should. 3) have piss poor gear (i.e. bad needle, poorly weighted tone arm, etc., etc....) IMO, the issiue of making a CD unit sound analogue is mathematically impossible. From my experiences the attempts wind up making the bass too prominent (to varying degrees) and mid reange always falls a bit short of the originally recorded punch. Usually, if you think they do sound the same (people with sensetive egos, brace yourselves) you may have -by clinical definition- *slightly impaired hearing. As a side note, I notice that a lot of people like this own Yamaha synths. I don't quite know the connection here. artisan001 If you don't like it, don't klick on it.
1997-08-07 19:42Mark KolmarOn Thu, 7 Aug 1997, james coward wrote: > If you're hearing pops & scratches on your vinyl
From:
Mark Kolmar
To:
james coward
Cc:
Date:
Thu, 7 Aug 1997 19:42:43 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Subject:
Re: (idm) Re: vinyl -vs- cd
Reply to:
(idm) Re: vinyl -vs- cd
permalink · <Pine.WNT.3.96.970807192909.-3989737D-100000@mark>
On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, james coward wrote:
quoted 5 lines If you're hearing pops & scratches on your vinyls, as well> If you're hearing pops & scratches on your vinyls, as well > as a narrow soundscape, then, you *probably* either: 1) didn't give a > damn about what you were hearing. 2) don't take care of your vinyl > nearly as well as you should. 3) have piss poor gear (i.e. bad needle, > poorly weighted tone arm, etc., etc....)
Sorry, but I gotta jump in here. A friend of mine (who's been on this planet long enough to have experienced the 50's rock'n'roll scene first-hand) has a custom-made turntable with air-bearing, linear tracking tonearm, and a pair of B&W 801s (I've got the 804s which themselves are glorious and cost an arm & a leg). The man -loves- vinyl. But he'll also be the first one to tell you that most of the vinyl out there is sub-par -- and given that, ticks and clicks and pops just come with the territory. I hear a little of the same distortion on sibilance, and various other anomalies, as on my much lower-end table. On the flip side (pun intended), he's got the new pressings of the Hendrix albums. He says he's played _Electric Ladyland_ as often as any record in the house -- US, UK, German, Japanese pressings -- and on the new one he hears details he's never heard before. So it -can- be done right. Just most of the time it isn't. --Mark P.S. the new Hendrix CDs are also enormously improved...
1997-08-07 23:00Random Junkjames coward writes: > I don't usually have a lot to say on here, but, now, I feel I have
From:
Random Junk
To:
Date:
Thu, 7 Aug 1997 16:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
Re: (idm) Re: vinyl -vs- cd
Reply to:
(idm) Re: vinyl -vs- cd
permalink · <199708072300.QAA24440@hudsucker.gamespot.com>
james coward writes:
quoted 4 lines I don't usually have a lot to say on here, but, now, I feel I have to.> I don't usually have a lot to say on here, but, now, I feel I have to. > I completely agree with Sire and I feel that Che is a bit out to lunch. > CD units, still, cannot emulate analogue completely -no matter how hard > they try/lie.
but why would they want to? i just wish i could sit you all down in my studio and show you the difference between the master tape, the vinyl, a CD-R made from the master tape and then the vinyl. this would settle this whole thing once and for all. np: senor coconut. -- Jon Drukman jsd@gamespot.com SpotMedia Communications ...I was an infinitely hot and dense dot...
1997-08-07 23:46ryan|b|shawOn Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Random Junk wrote: o}i just wish i could sit you all down in my studio
From:
ryan|b|shaw
To:
Random Junk
Cc:
Date:
Thu, 7 Aug 1997 16:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
(idm) stop the madness
Reply to:
Re: (idm) Re: vinyl -vs- cd
permalink · <Pine.HPP.3.95.970807164320.12286B-100000@apollo0.Stanford.EDU>
On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Random Junk wrote: o}i just wish i could sit you all down in my studio and show you the o}difference between the master tape, the vinyl, a CD-R made from the o}master tape and then the vinyl. this would settle this whole thing o}once and for all. i think a crucial mistake people are making is thinking that *ANYTHING* will settle this matter once and for all. further posts on the matter will settle *NOTHING* i am getting that avalanche 3.0 program and the next person who posts on the subject is going out like junglizt. contributing to the drivel, r$