quoted 15 lines begin forwarded message from <akin> irdial@irdialsys.win-uk.net>begin forwarded message from <akin> irdial@irdialsys.win-uk.net
>
>> >g@warp writes
>> > > alas what the irdial essay failed to point out is that virtually all
>> > > electronic music (if not virtually all music) is mastered from DAT so
>> > > at best on vinyl you get a slightly mushed up 44KHz sample rate...
>
>That essay is misinterpreted 5 out of ten times, depending on the reader
>(If he has even read it). It was written simply to warn people to
>evaluate
>the media that they use to master with. DAT is a non professional
>mastering
>medium, and this has been confirmed across the board by audio
>professionals
>after hundreds of hours of evaluation.
More & more musicians I know go directly from hard disk to CDR. They all
say they don't trust DATs.
quoted 2 lines we have only ever been concerned with the sound of mastering, not of the>we have only ever been concerned with the sound of mastering, not of the
>individual elements used to make a recording.
It's hard to reconcile this with your later remark about AWE32s...
quoted 7 lines People inevitably say that>People inevitably say that
>because everybody uses digital reverbs ect that 'it won't make a
>difference' how its mastered. These are usually people that have not
>evaluated any media for a long period of time. This is also what we are
>concerned about; that there is a whole generation of people that have
>never had the chance to evaluate professional audio so that they can
>make an informed judgement on what sounds good and what does not.
Or maybe lo-fi has its own esthetic. Fuck pro audio.
quoted 33 lines Black Dog Droid writes:>> Black Dog Droid writes:
>> > In short, i don't believe the 96khz DVDs will be as good as yer all
>> > singing, all dancing analog setup. that it will probably fit in a
>> > suitcase, rather than a whole room, is about the only thing i can
>> > see going for it. :)
>
>well, if an analogue beating professional digital
>mastering/dissemination system ever gets released to the public,
>it will be a godsend; perfect pitch stability, longevity, and TRUE
>1 to 1 master cloning will make analoge die a death, and not before
>time. What we want is a switch over to the next generation of audio
>equipment that is not driven by the '2 pounds of baloney in a one pound
>bag' mentality (Mini Disc / DCC). The exponents of the current crop of
>digital equipment can be loosely characterized as 'box junkies' without
>any pro experience, deafly chasing after the specs instead of the sound.
>Thats cool, but dont say that digital does what it cant do; and thats
>what we have said all along.
>
>> Written by Random Junk <jsd@gamespot.com>
>> and eventually it will cost under $2000 and be entirely reliable.
>> unlike your basic analog deck which requires herculean efforts to keep
>> aligned, cleaned, and functioning.
>>
>
>you've obviously never used an 'analogue deck' (whatever that is) if you
>can use a q-tip to clean out your ears (and i suggest you do, and then
>go
>do some critical evaluation) you can maintain a reel to reel tape
>recorder.
>this is also the mantra of the digital morons; 'its harder to use, so
>its bad'. Thats bullshit. Maintaining a Studer A80 is simple, and if you
>don't care enough about your music to maintain your studio equipment,
>simply fuck off and die.
I guess you've never recalibrated an Otari 16 track for a different tape
bias, have you? Sorry, but reel-to-reels are a real pain in the ass. I've
owned everything from a TEAC 3340S to a big Otari, and an ADAT beats the
pants off them for maintainability & convenience, and for that matter,
sound quality. Besides, every time you play an analogue tape you degrade
the sound quality a little bit. (and vinyl for that matter)
quoted 3 lines Black Dog Droid writes:>> Black Dog Droid writes:
>> > will it make 44khz records sound old and jaded ??
>> > grin, people might have to 'upgrade' their CD collections.
Only the dumbasses. DVD will be backwards compatible, and to those of us
that think the music is more important than the specs, playing our old CDs
will be just fine.
quoted 1 line hmmm well, there has been a resurgance of vinal in Europe;>hmmm well, there has been a resurgance of vinal in Europe;
Well, that doesn't jibe with Warp's experience.
reissues of
quoted 3 lines classic recordings on vinyl, simultaneous CD/vinyl releases where it>classic recordings on vinyl, simultaneous CD/vinyl releases where it
>was CD only before. The word is out; CD is not as good as vinyl, and
>even the lowest peasant can hear the difference.
The only people I know that believe that are DJs & other atavists who let
their emotions color their hearing. I guess it's part of the lo-fi
esthetic. I've heard CDs made to sound as shitty as vinyl, but I've never
heard vinyl sound as good as CDs (and I've owned $200 Grado cartridges &
Half-speed Mastered versions of Dark Side Of The Moon, so I'm familiar with
how vinyl is supposed to sound under optimal conditions).
I just played the vinyl version of Autechre's Basscadet BCDTMX, then the CD
version, because it's been awhile since I've put the two head-to-head on the
same material. The turntable has a $100 cartridge I installed yesterday.
The CD player is the $80 CDROM drive in my computer, about the worst quality
CD player you'll find. With the CD, the low end is lower and more distinct,
the high hats crisper, and I can actually hear the reverb tails instead of
vinyl surface noise. Even the lowest peasant can hear the not so subtle
difference - the CD sounds much, much better.
I'm sick of vinyl only releases. I've got a stack of Gescom 12"s here, and
a box of CDRs. I'm hoping that Soundforge can get rid of the surface noise
and the pops before I burn the CDs. I'll probably have to EQ up the lowend
too. Too bad I can't do anything about the highend or the wow&flutter.
Maybe it one sound good to your snobbish ears, but it will sure sound better
to mine.
quoted 11 lines Black Dog Droid writes:>> Black Dog Droid writes:
>> > stuart is right though, it *is* an imperfect recording
>> > medium. Listen to records made before the advent of DAT, and those
>> > made (or mastered) afterwards. I don't have the "worlds best ears",
>> > but I can spot the difference.
>
>> Written by Random Junk <jsd@gamespot.com>
>> it's the fault of the engineers who made the recordings then, for not
>> understanding digital. or the fault of the mastering engineers who
>> created the stampers.
>>
I think Random Junk hit the nail on the head - analog mastering is a much
more intrusive process than digital mastering. When you hear a record with
"Another Porky Prime Cut" inscribed on the inner groove, you know it's been
massaged by the mastering engineer most associated with dance music (on this
list, at least). Porky knows all the tricks of how to change the sound of
the original master to make a dance 12" sound as good as possible. CDs
typically receive no such attention - basically just a check to make sure
there are no data errors. If you want a good example of what a difference
mastering can make, listen to one of the original CD issues of Led Zeppelin,
which were not mastered, and one of the reissued CDs which were mastered -
big difference.
quoted 15 lines digital was sold as a transparent medium which allowed you to dump audio>digital was sold as a transparent medium which allowed you to dump audio
>back and forth between machines without any loss of qualtiy. of course,
>this is a lie. three examples:
>
>1/ using the sonic soultions system, different brands of hard drives
>deliver a different sound (you read me right).
>
>2/ DAT to DAT digital copies sound worse than DAT to DAT copies made
>with the analogue ins/outs.
>
>3/ PCM1630 masters copied onto exabyte render CDs that sound different
>to CDs produced without the exabyte stage (pressing plants use exabyte
>to cut the glass masters at double speed; a perfect example of careless
>cost saving behavioiur)
>
Oooh, and if you mark the edges of a CD with a green marker it will sound
_better_. Any other high-tech voodoo tales to share?
quoted 8 lines digital was/is sold as something that eliminates the need to pay>digital was/is sold as something that eliminates the need to pay
>attention to what you are doing, since its all supposed to be
>transparent.
>The badly mastered first generation ditial productions were bad because
>the engineers had faith in the boxes; a fatal error. Now of couse,
>everybody (almost) knows that you have to be very careful when you
>master
>with digital, as careful as you have to be with analogue tape.
Mastering is a black art practiced by few masters, and ignored by many
amateurs. Luckily, digital processing is getting so good that there are now
specialized mastering boxes which aren't as good as a real mastering master,
but quite a bit better than most amateurs. People are starting to catch on.
quoted 2 lines and of>and of
>course, the better professionals are dual mastering.
Horse hockey.
quoted 14 lines Black Dog Droid writes:>> Black Dog Droid writes:
>> > why has the industry done this? is it a "cost thing"? you can get 4
>> > CD's into the same box as 1 LP? making them cheaper to produce and
>> > ship? or what?
>
>> Written by Random Junk <jsd@gamespot.com>
>> maybe, for once, it was a case of superior technology winning out?
>
>hardly. what *is* interesting is that CD is a rare case of a single
>technology exploding to almost eliminate a previous technology, without
>ANY alternative competing replacement. with home video it was a choice
>between betamax and VHS...and so on. CD spread like wildfire because
>there was no alternative replacement to vinyl, and for the consumer,
>the promises were just too good (to be true).
I knew a lot of people in high school that bought everything on 8-track.
THen cassettes took off. I remember that cassette sales were outstripping
vinyl sales just before CDs took off. Yes, there was an alternative
replacement, which, if the cassette section at Tower is anything to judge
by, is still an alternative.
quoted 11 lines Written by Random Junk <jsd@gamespot.com>>> Written by Random Junk <jsd@gamespot.com>
>> certainly when CDs came about they cost a fortune to manufacture. the
>> prices reflected that. now the cost has just about equalized (and
>> actually my recent research indicates that CDs are cheaper than vinyl
>> if you do it properly!). no doubt the industry loves CDs because of
>> the better profit margins. also quality control is much less of a
>> hassle.
>>
>
>once again, 'we finally dont have to pay attention to the dirty
>details'; its a very bad and slack attitude.
The failure of the music industry to pass along the cost savings is indeed
tragic. May6e Irdial sells CDs directly to consumers for $10 and passes
along the savings, or do they play the same dishonest game of maintaining
artificially high prices?
quoted 10 lines Black Dog Droid writes:>> Black Dog Droid writes:
>> > soundwise, it sucks.
>
>> Written by Random Junk <jsd@gamespot.com>
>> oh please. find a better mastering engineer or learn about digital
>> yourself and premaster your own CDs.
>
>'premaster your own CDs?' *very funny*. if you think that high quality
>audio comes from the bedroom of a lamer with an awe32 and a CDR then
>*you* really dont know what you are talking about.
If you're calling on of my favorite recording artists a bedroom lamer, then
you're a fucking elitist asshole who definitely knows not what he writes about.
quoted 4 lines Black Dog Droid writes:>> Black Dog Droid writes:
>> > I feel (a bit) cheated when i buy a CD. LP's used to be chunky,
>> > special, and full of bonus goodies. oh, *AND* you can roll a joint
>> > on them. 12" vinyl is still my prefered medium.
Just buy a bong, dude.
quoted 9 lines Written by Random Junk <jsd@gamespot.com>>> Written by Random Junk <jsd@gamespot.com>
>> it certainly looks good but it doesn't fit in your backpack and you
>> can't play it in your car.
>>
>
>so, the convenience generation shows its repulsive and ignorant face
>again. the sound of a car engine roaring with music; ~thats~ the sound
>of 'high quality audio'! you lamer, go 'blow' sony/philips and leave
>audio to the professionals.
Well, I prefer the sound of the engine roaring to both vinyl surface noise
and tape hiss, so sue me.
I think we've come to the crux of your argument here - you're of a different
generation that treats music differently. For you, music is dispensed from
the high priesthood of "professional" musicians, to be enjoyed in pristine
conditions on expensive equipment in the drawing room. For us, music is a
portable environment, to be enjoyed on a $50 Walkman under any conditions.
It doesn't matter to us that mu-Ziq recorded an album to cassette with
enough distortion to give you a heart attack - that's an important part of
the sound. The whole techno phenomenon is based on recordings made on cheap
equipment in bedrooms, mastered to cheap equipment in bedrooms. So, you
lamer, go 'blow' Studer, Neumann, Neve, or whatever high-end audio equipment
manufacturer you worship, and leave the music that speaks to us to the
bedroom knob-twiddlers.
quoted 10 lines to end...>to end...
>
>We are currently experimenting with mpeg layer 3. Why? because the way
>people consume music is changing. 'Desktop Audio' CDs with 11 hours
>of sound on them could be an interesting product to market. Bringing
>music to where it is heard is an interesting concept, and with layer
>3, we can bring hours of Desktop quality sound to the irc addict /
>mouse potato all on one disc.we have alway been interested in using
>different tools and you can be sure,that as the new tools come out,
>we will use them. what we WONT do is say that a cat is an orange.
I thought you said you were against two pounds of shit in a one pound bag...
Che