Vinyl trend causes discord
- Thread starter Teddy Ray
- Start date
Our Norman is defo' feeling a little "miffed", we all know that vinyl never died, [but someone forgot to tell him!] it just waited for the inevitable disenchantment with "perfect sound forever".
I did like Fremers riposte.
Errol.
Teddy Ray
pfm Member
fremer is a collossal bore and comes off as a bit dumb sometimes, imo.
it won't ever die, no. It is inferior in every possible way, but it makes for nice merchandising, and the appeasement of bearded skinny jeans hipsters these days.
i buy vinyl myself, i enjoy the novelty. just dont use it as a main source(more as a pallette cleanser to make me appreciate digital), and never will.
it won't ever die, no. It is inferior in every possible way, but it makes for nice merchandising, and the appeasement of bearded skinny jeans hipsters these days.
i buy vinyl myself, i enjoy the novelty. just dont use it as a main source(more as a pallette cleanser to make me appreciate digital), and never will.
Teddy Ray
pfm Member
to each his own, man. I can't abide vinyl more than one album..max.
i dont listen to CD either. I just dont like physical media. Streaming is the way for me. the best SQ, convenience, and the most music at one's fingertips.
I will get to streaming one day, at the moment the only stream I get to be in is one that holds rainbow trout
Errol.
Teddy Ray
pfm Member
I will get to streaming one day, at the moment the only stream I get to be in is one that holds rainbow trout
Errol.
I fish too, brother. Bream, Bass, Spots, and Deep-Sea.
I dont eat fish but my family does.Michael Fremer is great. A very funny guy. I don't agree with everything he says, but I love his passion for music (and vinyl!).
Teddy Ray
pfm Member
He grates on my nerves. Badly. I like Gillette much better, and Art Dudley is ok,. My favorite is peter aczel of course.
I fish too, brother. Bream, Bass, Spots, and Deep-Sea.
I think Bream is our Snapper, we don't have Bass and I'm not sure what spots are. We certainly have Deep-Sea or game fishing as we call it.
Interesting that you don't eat fish, my late grandfather spent a fortune on trout fishing, lake house at Taupo, boat etc, the whole nine yards.
Couldn't stand the taste of it! Just loved fishing for them.
Sorry if I have crapped this thread
Errol.
Teddy Ray
pfm Member
its all good man, hell.
snapper is a different fish! UK has BREAM too.http://www.gofishing.co.uk/Angling-...ecies2/British-Freshwater-Fish-Species/Bream/
its all good man, hell.
http://www.gofishing.co.uk/Angling-...ecies2/British-Freshwater-Fish-Species/Bream/
Yes totally different, we don't have them here.
Teddy Ray
pfm Member
do you have catfish?
Nic Robinson
Moderator
Teddy,
Every few days you can be relied on to post a link to something that ridicules or otherwise attempts to undermine the position of those who enjoy listening to vinyl. IMO it’s an example of the bullying methods of some newer members alluded to elsewhere and is serving to make PFM less of a nice place to be.
PFM is a community of music and audio enthusiasts and at its best celebrates difference of approach and perception of its members. It’s also a place where members’ generosity of spirit, time, energy and material have astounded me over the last decade on many an occasion.
As for vinyl; measure away! I prefer it in my system, as do many others. Live with it, or get a better record player.
As for Norman Lebrecht; he is also on record as detesting Tchaikovsky. Whilst that particular composer is very far from my favourite, I do believe much of his music to be work of genius and would struggle to agree with his point of view. So there you are.
As for you, may I gently request that you get off your hobby horse and give it a rest. Or bugger off.
Cheers,
Nic.
Every few days you can be relied on to post a link to something that ridicules or otherwise attempts to undermine the position of those who enjoy listening to vinyl. IMO it’s an example of the bullying methods of some newer members alluded to elsewhere and is serving to make PFM less of a nice place to be.
PFM is a community of music and audio enthusiasts and at its best celebrates difference of approach and perception of its members. It’s also a place where members’ generosity of spirit, time, energy and material have astounded me over the last decade on many an occasion.
As for vinyl; measure away! I prefer it in my system, as do many others. Live with it, or get a better record player.
As for Norman Lebrecht; he is also on record as detesting Tchaikovsky. Whilst that particular composer is very far from my favourite, I do believe much of his music to be work of genius and would struggle to agree with his point of view. So there you are.
As for you, may I gently request that you get off your hobby horse and give it a rest. Or bugger off.
Cheers,
Nic.
Greg
2t5b
I love vinyl, I particularly like that its measurement and specification makes it improbable yet it can sound awesome. It's inconvenient, heavy, expensive, degrades with use, gets dirty, has to be physically changed or turned over after 22 mins max. Nevertheless it's ace.
Streaming digital files is great, but despite all of the convenience thumbing through flac files in my old age won't be quite the same.
Streaming digital files is great, but despite all of the convenience thumbing through flac files in my old age won't be quite the same.
I hope this is allowed.
This is a quote from Steve Hoffman (A Mastering Engineer) about what sounds closest to the master tape. Makes interesting reading.
12-01-2007
Steve Hoffman
Start Quote
What sounds just like the master tape: CD, Vinyl, SACD or an Open Reel tape copy?
First, let me say that I love records, compact discs and SACDs; I have a bunch of all three formats. Nothing that I discovered below changed that one bit.
I did these comparisons a few years ago. Since I spilled the beans to an interviewer on mic last year I continually get quoted and misquoted about this subject. I'll try to set the "record" straight in this thread. Please note I'm typing on a whacked out computer not my own with a tiny monitor and no spell check.... There could be a (gasp) typo or two...
A few years ago, mainly out of curiosity (and nothing else) I got the chance at AcousTech Mastering to compare an actual master tape to the playback of a record lacquer and digital playback. Also did the same test using DSD (SACD) playback as well later on in the day. The results were interesting. The below is just my opinion. Note that we cut the record at 45 because the lathe was set for that speed. A similar test we did using the 33 1/3 speed yielded the same result.
FIRST COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DIGITAL PACIFIC MICROSONICS CAPTURE.
We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).
We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.
Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels. Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I noticed:
The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the practically the same. We honestly couldn't tell one from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in so many pictures posted here of AcousTech).
The flat digital playback of my mastering sounded different. NOT BAD, just different. The decay on the piano was different, the plucks of Scott's bass were different, the reverb trail was noticeably truncated due to a loss of resolution. Non unpleasant, just not like the actual master tape. This is slightly frustrating to me because it confirmed the fact that when mastering in digital one has to compensate for the change (which I do with my usual "tricks"). The record however, gave back exactly what we put in to it. Exactly.
Please note that an actual record for sale would have gone through the manufacturing process and the lacquer would have been processed to a MASTER, MOTHER, STAMPER and VINYL with increased surface noise, etc. but the sound of the music remains intact for the most part. A remarkable thing since records have been basically made the same way for over 100 years.
SECOND COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DSD MASTER (SACD MASTER).
So, using the same master tape of WALTZ FOR DEBBY, we compared the before mentioned acetate that we cut on the AcousTech lathe (manufactured in 1967 and modded by Kevin Gray) with a DSD playback of the same tape with the same mastering and levels.
Result? The DSD/SACD version sounded even MORE different than the compact disc digital playback compared to the analog master. More not-like the sound of the actual master tape. The resolution was fine and we could hear the notes decay, etc. just like analog but the TONALITY was a bit off. It was not telling the truth when compared to the master tape or the acetate record.
THIRD COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE RECORD with OPEN REEL TAPE COPY AT 15 ips:
We made a dub of the tune WALTZ FOR DEBBY to an Ampex ATR-100 at 15 ips non-Dolby, +3 level and played it back with the actual master tape and the acetate record. Both of us thought the open reel tape copy sounded inferior to the acetate record when compared to the master tape; weaker transients, a more "blurred" sound that would never be noticeable unless played back with the actual master tape to compare it to.
So, what does this mean to you? Probably nothing. What did it mean to me? I found it interesting. The CD playback had more accurate tonality than the DSD/SACD playback. The DSD playback had more front to back resolution than the CD playback. The tape copy sounded slightly lackluster. The acetate record playback beat them all in terms of resolution, tonal accuracy and everything else when compared directly with the analog master in playback. This is not wonderful news in a certain sense; vinyl playback is sometimes a pain in the butt and knowing that CD's are not capturing everything in perfect resolution drives me bonkers.
Regarding the lowly phonograph record:
Remember, a record groove is a true "analog" of a sound wave; not a SAMPLE but the real deal. Even the electrically recorded 78's I have from the 1920's have a wonderful sound with a lifelike convincing midband (which is where the "heart" of the music lies). Read what Kevin Gray wrote in this essay:
http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm
http://www.recordtech.com/faq.htm
Of course records have their problems (could be noisy, warped, bad cutting, etc.) as well but for the most part they will be a damn miraculous representation of the actual master recording for not much money.
Your comments are welcome.
Please remember, the above is just my OPINION but I found it interesting. I love my compact discs but I realize they are not the last word in resolution; they are damn fine though and when listening for pleasure I play CDs and records, with CDs getting the most play. My Sony and Living Stereo SACDs are never far away from me either. If you disagree with me, that's cool. It's all fun, or should be.
End Quote
This is a quote from Steve Hoffman (A Mastering Engineer) about what sounds closest to the master tape. Makes interesting reading.
12-01-2007
Steve Hoffman
Start Quote
What sounds just like the master tape: CD, Vinyl, SACD or an Open Reel tape copy?
First, let me say that I love records, compact discs and SACDs; I have a bunch of all three formats. Nothing that I discovered below changed that one bit.
I did these comparisons a few years ago. Since I spilled the beans to an interviewer on mic last year I continually get quoted and misquoted about this subject. I'll try to set the "record" straight in this thread. Please note I'm typing on a whacked out computer not my own with a tiny monitor and no spell check.... There could be a (gasp) typo or two...
A few years ago, mainly out of curiosity (and nothing else) I got the chance at AcousTech Mastering to compare an actual master tape to the playback of a record lacquer and digital playback. Also did the same test using DSD (SACD) playback as well later on in the day. The results were interesting. The below is just my opinion. Note that we cut the record at 45 because the lathe was set for that speed. A similar test we did using the 33 1/3 speed yielded the same result.
FIRST COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DIGITAL PACIFIC MICROSONICS CAPTURE.
We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).
We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.
Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels. Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I noticed:
The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the practically the same. We honestly couldn't tell one from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in so many pictures posted here of AcousTech).
The flat digital playback of my mastering sounded different. NOT BAD, just different. The decay on the piano was different, the plucks of Scott's bass were different, the reverb trail was noticeably truncated due to a loss of resolution. Non unpleasant, just not like the actual master tape. This is slightly frustrating to me because it confirmed the fact that when mastering in digital one has to compensate for the change (which I do with my usual "tricks"). The record however, gave back exactly what we put in to it. Exactly.
Please note that an actual record for sale would have gone through the manufacturing process and the lacquer would have been processed to a MASTER, MOTHER, STAMPER and VINYL with increased surface noise, etc. but the sound of the music remains intact for the most part. A remarkable thing since records have been basically made the same way for over 100 years.
SECOND COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DSD MASTER (SACD MASTER).
So, using the same master tape of WALTZ FOR DEBBY, we compared the before mentioned acetate that we cut on the AcousTech lathe (manufactured in 1967 and modded by Kevin Gray) with a DSD playback of the same tape with the same mastering and levels.
Result? The DSD/SACD version sounded even MORE different than the compact disc digital playback compared to the analog master. More not-like the sound of the actual master tape. The resolution was fine and we could hear the notes decay, etc. just like analog but the TONALITY was a bit off. It was not telling the truth when compared to the master tape or the acetate record.
THIRD COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE RECORD with OPEN REEL TAPE COPY AT 15 ips:
We made a dub of the tune WALTZ FOR DEBBY to an Ampex ATR-100 at 15 ips non-Dolby, +3 level and played it back with the actual master tape and the acetate record. Both of us thought the open reel tape copy sounded inferior to the acetate record when compared to the master tape; weaker transients, a more "blurred" sound that would never be noticeable unless played back with the actual master tape to compare it to.
So, what does this mean to you? Probably nothing. What did it mean to me? I found it interesting. The CD playback had more accurate tonality than the DSD/SACD playback. The DSD playback had more front to back resolution than the CD playback. The tape copy sounded slightly lackluster. The acetate record playback beat them all in terms of resolution, tonal accuracy and everything else when compared directly with the analog master in playback. This is not wonderful news in a certain sense; vinyl playback is sometimes a pain in the butt and knowing that CD's are not capturing everything in perfect resolution drives me bonkers.
Regarding the lowly phonograph record:
Remember, a record groove is a true "analog" of a sound wave; not a SAMPLE but the real deal. Even the electrically recorded 78's I have from the 1920's have a wonderful sound with a lifelike convincing midband (which is where the "heart" of the music lies). Read what Kevin Gray wrote in this essay:
http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm
http://www.recordtech.com/faq.htm
Of course records have their problems (could be noisy, warped, bad cutting, etc.) as well but for the most part they will be a damn miraculous representation of the actual master recording for not much money.
Your comments are welcome.
Please remember, the above is just my OPINION but I found it interesting. I love my compact discs but I realize they are not the last word in resolution; they are damn fine though and when listening for pleasure I play CDs and records, with CDs getting the most play. My Sony and Living Stereo SACDs are never far away from me either. If you disagree with me, that's cool. It's all fun, or should be.
End Quote
Nic Robinson
Moderator
Words from the wise.