179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← archive index

vinyl v cd -Reply

5 messages · 4 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
1994-02-04 17:16vinyl v cd -Reply
1994-02-04 19:21Laura La Gassa Re: vinyl v cd -Reply
1994-02-04 19:35Re: vinyl v cd -Reply
1994-02-04 21:00C J Silverio Re: vinyl v cd -Reply
1994-02-04 21:21djkc Re: vinyl v cd -Reply
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
1994-02-04 17:16LUKEY@WordPerfect.com>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, isn't this list full of dickheads... Ask yourself this - What kind o
From:
Date:
Fri, 04 Feb 1994 10:16:53 -0700
Subject:
vinyl v cd -Reply
quoted 1 line>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, isn't this list full of dickheads... Ask yourself this - What kind of music is this list about? - Dance Music Dance music, by definition, is music to dance to, therefore its primary function is to be played loud with a lot of people dancing to it, This can only be realistically achieved via two Technics - This kind of music should come out as vinyl ......QED. Admittedly there <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< This type of arguement is what makes me wonder how "intelligent" my fellow dance music enthusiasts really are. Stating that dance music should always be played on 2 technics is like somebody 40 years ago stating that dance music should always be played on a reel-to-reel. I think the only people on this list that can't wake up and smell the coffee are the ones that have a vested financial interest in some type of record pressing plant or another... Fine, if you think noise and distortion adds some type of "warmth" or "emotion" to the music, then go buy shitty cables and get a shitty mixing board that introduces noise to the recording. Me, I'd rather stick with as little noise as I can get.
1994-02-04 19:21Laura La GassaThe I in "IDM" has nothing to do with the intelligence of the list members, but rather wit
From:
Laura La Gassa
Date:
Fri, 4 Feb 1994 11:21:20 -0800
Subject:
Re: vinyl v cd -Reply
The I in "IDM" has nothing to do with the intelligence of the list members, but rather with some esoteric quality of the music discussed. (Personally, I think the term "intelligent" dance music sucks, BUT I'm glad to see that there's a forum for people to talk about dance music at a deeper level than "ID this song please." Therefore, I fully support the existence of this list.) This whole vinyl versus CD thing is so old. It was fought over in rec.audio back in the early to mid 80s. It was fought over in rec.music.misc back in the late 80s. It was fought over in alt.rave, ne-raves, sfraves, and god knows where else during the 90s. Just give it a rest, ok? Hey, I know, for fun lets go back and fight about is rap a valid musical form! It would be at least as pointless. Laura
1994-02-04 19:35LUKEY@WordPerfect.com>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animations are |better on film because the resolution of "film" is inheren
From:
Date:
Fri, 04 Feb 1994 12:35:47 -0700
Subject:
Re: vinyl v cd -Reply
quoted 1 line>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
animations are |better on film because the resolution of "film" is inherently higher than a |monitor. Nevermind that the original source was a computer and a monitor |(clue for the morons, most "dance music" is mastered digitally now). Uh.... not quite. The resolution of film is higher. And animations done for film work are done at much-higher-than-video resolutions. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I think you missed his point. He wasn't talking about a tv-screen, he was talking about a high resolution monitor. Regardless of how much resolution you can get on film, it's not going to get any better than the original source output (the computer). Basically, he was saying that if the original recording is remastered digitally, you're not going to get any better quality if you put it on vinyl. Even if you do have a stylus that can read music down to the so-called "molecular level." This talk about laser stylus is pretty far out there as well. If you use a laser stylus (I hear the price has dropped down to about $20,000 now... bargain!) then you're converting the analog grooves in a record to a digital format before playback, and this is basically making a record into what a CD already is.
1994-02-04 21:00C J Silverio|From: LUKEY@WordPerfect.com |Date: Fri, 04 Feb 1994 12:35:47 -0700 |>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |anim
From:
C J Silverio
Date:
Fri, 4 Feb 1994 13:00:38 -0800
Subject:
Re: vinyl v cd -Reply
|From: LUKEY@WordPerfect.com |Date: Fri, 04 Feb 1994 12:35:47 -0700 |>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |animations are ||better on film because the resolution of "film" is inherently higher than a ||monitor. Nevermind that the original source was a computer and a monitor ||(clue for the morons, most "dance music" is mastered digitally now). |Uh.... not quite. The resolution of film is higher. And animations |done for film work are done at much-higher-than-video resolutions. |I think you missed his point. He wasn't talking about a tv-screen, |he was talking about a high resolution monitor. Regardless of how |much resolution you can get on film, it's not going to get any better |than the original source output (the computer). And you missed mine: the original source output (the computer) generates images that are very high-resolution for professional animation. Higher than your typical monitor, if they're going to end up on film. His example was bad, though his point has merit. This example might actually be a better argument for his point. You could compare vinyl to video: both formats lose something from the original master. This has totally lost all relevance to dance music. People who want to be grumpy assholes on either side of the analog/ digital debate should probably do it in private email. --- C J Silverio ceej@netcom.com ceej@well.sf.ca.us "He must be an oddity, I think," said she. "I cannot make him out. There is something very pompous in his style. Can he be a sensible man, sir?" --Pride & Prejudice.
1994-02-04 21:21djkc> > This whole vinyl versus CD thing is so old. It was fought over in > rec.audio back in
From:
djkc
Date:
Fri, 4 Feb 1994 14:21:41 -0700 (MST)
Subject:
Re: vinyl v cd -Reply
quoted 7 lines This whole vinyl versus CD thing is so old. It was fought over in> > This whole vinyl versus CD thing is so old. It was fought over in > rec.audio back in the early to mid 80s. It was fought over in > rec.music.misc back in the late 80s. It was fought over in alt.rave, > ne-raves, sfraves, and god knows where else during the 90s. > Just give it a rest, ok? >
And don't forget the BPM list. You're on there, aren't you Laura?
quoted 3 lines Hey, I know, for fun lets go back and fight about is rap a valid musical> Hey, I know, for fun lets go back and fight about is rap a valid musical > form! It would be at least as pointless. >
I find that many interesting ideas have come out of this current debate, rather than just a "worship CD only" vs. "worship Vinyl only" war. I haven't read today's posts yet, so has it become a "fight" as you say? Some really cool ideas have branched into the "about the future" subject thread. Though, this CD/vinyl thing isn't really IDM related.
quoted 2 lines Laura> Laura >
-djkc