Right On Bob!

[Beck]

Beck (Tim),
I find it interesting. If there was one person I was specially addressing in my little satire it wasnt Lt Bob or Dr Zee but you, who still hasnt responded to my query as to where you would have put your second red line on the CD recorder bargraph. Whose idea was the extra red line? Yours. So why dont you back yourself?
Now when you finally make a contribution, you avoid all the audio issues I make and selectively quote the purely non-audio bit of satire right at the end of my piece.
I'm not an apologist for the early promoters of CD's and home CD players. We're talking about playback of Redbook CD's today, not 24 years ago.

When you offered earlier in this thread that you go to the trouble of recording all your CD's to reel to reel and then burn fresh CD's from that, I thought surely it was April 1. (April Fool's day in my neck of the woods)
Really Tim, were you serious or just having a lend of us?
I dont mind either way. I like a good joke.
Tim

No joke… and it’s not my idea, but it works. And those “Classical music lovers” you refer to as “They” are me, and my classically trained coloratura soprano/accomplished pianist wife, who has both a voice and ears on loan from God.

Where to start… hmmm…? In general let me say that you may be jumping to conclusions about why someone would want to record CDs to tape. It won’t restore something like room ambience or stereo spatial accuracy (which digital corrupts). However, it can temper the harshness that digital audio adds, especially in the high end. That’s right! Digital adds imperfections. Probably the biggest mistake people make when comparing analog to digital is believing digital is a true reflection of the original sound source, and only analog colors the sound.

The truth is all recording formats alter the original audio in different ways. I don’t blame anyone for thinking digital is the reference because we’ve been told this for decades, but it’s not science; it’s marketing. I used to accept it myself in my younger days because it was so prevalent.

Analog will not “fix” CD audio, but I find it fills in empty spaces that digital strips out. I believe this is partly due to a subtle, musically beneficial harmonic distortion and the bass bump inherent to analog recording. There is certainly more to it and it gets into the realm of trying to justify why you like a certain food. The bottom line is that you like it… end of story.

I’ve described the effect of analog tape as airbrushed sound. Imagine the Playboy centerfold… she looks better than the untreated original. In this sense I feel a well-done analog recording can be better than live. Now imagine the same Playboy photo shoot with unnatural lighting – bright, harsh, clinical and unflattering. Or just use the terms cold and sterile, which are well established in reference to digital audio.

Where the red meter should be at the other end of the bargraph? It depends on the music and the listener. My point is that low-level audio passages are not processed with the full depth and resolution of the digital format in question. Digital advocates don’t deny this. They can’t, because although digital is binary, it’s still math.

The phenomenon is most easily demonstrated with a clearly discernable reverb tail on a digital effects processor. But it’s happening on your CD whether it jumps out and bites you or not. It’s not only an analog vs. digital issue. Proponents of greater word length and resolution, e.g. 24/96 are making the same argument. Thus it’s a digital vs. digital argument as well.

~Tim

 

[littlesongs]

when one speaks in terms of classical recordings, one should keep in mind that most classical music sold really well from the early days of caruso 78s to the advent of long playing vinyl and on through the stereo revolution... this was back when even an average teenager would do homework, practice an instrument and listen to music... sure, eventually, there were 45s in a pile in the bedroom, but the radio, victrola and later, stereo in the living room was always hallowed ground... it cost dad weeks of pay... he was also paying for those lessons and he wasn't gonna sit through just any old racket...

for years, the majors brought the public leonard bernstein, aaron copland, isaac stern and dozens of others... and that stuff was accessible and made mom & pops very happy... since the mid fifties, rhythm-n-blues, rock-n-roll and country had made strides in both fidelity and appeal... after the "hi-fi boom" gave way to more portable and lower fidelity outlets like the transistor radio and music in the car, the strictly classical labels were marginalized commercially -- just like jazz -- and the revenue that was not exactly earth shaking before, began to peter out... still, to the credit of the audience, there has always been a segment of the population willing to shell out for 180 gram vinyl of a goose pimple inducing performance...

(elvis is singing, "i got the hi-fi high and the lights are low..." as i type...)

i was working at a pair of public radio stations when the shift from vinyl to compact disc happened... the general consensus at the time was that the folks who did great records before -- like deutsche grammophone -- could still be counted on for great compact discs... but... the new medium had sparked a renewed interest in all sorts of music and some pretty marginal recordings appeared from all quarters... one had to sort a bit of wheat from a lot of chaff when it came to the new cds and upstart labels... this was also around the time of the collapse of the authoritarian governments across europe and that led to another huge influx of recordings from composers, performers and symphonies that never had a chance to perform with any regularity in the west...

as far as vinyl went, a dedicated member of our staff had already painstakingly transferred much of it to reel-to-reel... by the early 1990s, he had assembled hundreds of ten inch one hour programs... since the station was in existence for many years, alot of what we had was pretty rare, so most of the records were already in fairly light rotation simply to preserve them... we had a library that was sorted out again as the vinyl was reissued and i think all parties were pretty divided over which recording sounded better... this was before redbook, but i think much of that community is still arguing... and... so is the jazz community... and... so are we...

no matter the genre, i think most of us were and are struck by the music first and the sound second... as we evolve and our tastes broaden, we still find ourselves returning to our favorites and after a time we are familiar enough to hear them in our head note for note... warts and all... sometimes we have a skip on the record print itself in our memory... or cue burn... or surface noise... and perhaps that is why we get pickier and pickier... about the recordings, the methods of reproduction and who we will let touch our precious collections...

there are really benefits all the way around... vinyl is still here and really good records and the equipment to listen to them can still be purchased quite easily... sometimes we have to pay a high premium, but we can get the sternum stirring lows and the soaring highs and float along on a melody just like bygone days... on the other hand... it is mighty groovy that one can point a kid at mozart or ginastera or widor -- or miles or basie or monk -- and they can go about their day with an ipod full of truly great music and learn what made it all so magic to us... with the sacrifices in fidelity have come the ability to reach a broader group of folks... this actually benefits those of us -- many in this forum -- who simply don't have the equipment to make a great recording of a great tune... which brings me to my point...

without an audience, no amount of perfection is relevant...

imho... of course...

 

[MCI2424]

Yes, "digital remastering" can simply mean a tape was converted to a digital format. That was my point. The term has become almost meaningless. I was also saluting the good digital remastering that I've heard on some of my favourite old 60's and 70's vinyl records. Yes I understand that the signal could be processed to accomodate the limitations of vinyl but we werent talking about that. My point was that assuming the original 2 track tape is still available and in good condition there would seem no good reason to do much "tweaking" of it, unless there really were production faults in it originally.
In the case of a good master tape even with the best mastering facility available, what else needs to be done? The dynamics are good, the overall EQ is right, the channel balance is good, there's little background noise. Headroom? We're talking about a finished, mixed down tape. Sure, you must not clip the signal when recording it to digital or at any point after that but I hardly think that would be difficult. More of an issue when mixing multitracks where levels are additive.


I dont understand what you mean about "the standards for EQing are totally different" Totally different from what?
"Headroom, noise floor levels are different" Again, different to what?

Sure, 24 bit is very quiet and even 16 bit CD for the old timer analog guys seems like heaven so what does that have to do with digitally remastering analog tapes from the 50's and early 60's which didnt achieve anywhere near those noise specs? Digitally remastering those tapes, assuming they were made well and still sound great on a good mastering house's gear, should be a cinch. An easy day at the office, I would have thought.
I was objecting to the attempt to make those old tapes into something they never were and never will be. Most people dont seem to mind a bit of tape hiss on an otherwise good, well produced recording.
An example of bad remastering I once encountered was an old Groucho Mark You Bet Your Life radio transcription disc remastered to vinyl. Listening to the vinyl, you could tell they had used gating to reduce the noise of the original transcription disc. Hey,the transcription disc noise was not too bad. But the severe gating had now pushed the quiet passages so low they were now buried under the surface noise of the vinyl! Grouch and the contestants were now swallowing their words!
If the remastering had been to CD it would have still sounded awful but at least the much better noise floor of the CD would have meant the quieter passages were at least not buried in noise. And it was noise they were supposedly trying to reduce!
(This only underlines the point that remastering old recordings to digital ought to be a cinch. You have such a relatively quiet medium that both digital clipping and digital noise just shouldnt be an issue. It's luxurious.)
Again, all would have been well if they'd just left well alone! But almost certainly this was a low budget rerelease and they had employed someone who didnt have a clue. Your point, I take it, and I thoroughly agree.


Tim

Masters that are destined for Vinyle have different eq'ing for low end and the highs are boosted in certain frequencies. These eq changes are because of the physical characteristics of vinyle. To re-master for CD, the eq can be set back to "normal" shall we say. Master tapes made for records are different and would sound bad if placed directly to CD.

 

[MCI2424]

No joke… and it’s not my idea, but it works. And those “Classical music lovers” you refer to as “They” are me, and my classically trained coloratura soprano/accomplished pianist wife, who has both a voice and ears on loan from God.

Where to start… hmmm…? In general let me say that you may be jumping to conclusions about why someone would want to record CDs to tape. It won’t restore something like room ambience or stereo spatial accuracy (which digital corrupts). However, it can temper the harshness that digital audio adds, especially in the high end. That’s right! Digital adds imperfections. Probably the biggest mistake people make when comparing analog to digital is believing digital is a true reflection of the original sound source, and only analog colors the sound.

The truth is all recording formats alter the original audio in different ways. I don’t blame anyone for thinking digital is the reference because we’ve been told this for decades, but it’s not science; it’s marketing. I used to accept it myself in my younger days because it was so prevalent.

Analog will not “fix” CD audio, but I find it fills in empty spaces that digital strips out. I believe this is partly due to a subtle, musically beneficial harmonic distortion and the bass bump inherent to analog recording. There is certainly more to it and it gets into the realm of trying to justify why you like a certain food. The bottom line is that you like it… end of story.

I’ve described the effect of analog tape as airbrushed sound. Imagine the Playboy centerfold… she looks better than the untreated original. In this sense I feel a well-done analog recording can be better than live. Now imagine the same Playboy photo shoot with unnatural lighting – bright, harsh, clinical and unflattering. Or just use the terms cold and sterile, which are well established in reference to digital audio.

Where the red meter should be at the other end of the bargraph? It depends on the music and the listener. My point is that low-level audio passages are not processed with the full depth and resolution of the digital format in question. Digital advocates don’t deny this. They can’t, because although digital is binary, it’s still math.

The phenomenon is most easily demonstrated with a clearly discernable reverb tail on a digital effects processor. But it’s happening on your CD whether it jumps out and bites you or not. It’s not only an analog vs. digital issue. Proponents of greater word length and resolution, e.g. 24/96 are making the same argument. Thus it’s a digital vs. digital argument as well.

~Tim

I am afraid you don't really understand about digital recording basics and have pretty much fooled yourself into hearing something that you really don't understand. I believe you hear something you like, can't argue that, you hear what you hear, but it is more likely you like the sound of the A/D, D/A and filter design in one of the systems you are using.

Greater resolution beyond 96 is totally overkill and creates a system with a Megahertz bandwidth. Speakers are not capable of producing anything much more than 22Khz. Greater wordlength than 24 bit is hardly necessary as the dynamic range of 24 bit goes way below the noise floor of the best amplifiers in the world. 192Khz is a sales ploy that burdens the computer with waaaay too much data to store and actually introduces more distortion because the charging time on caps, transient time on other electronic components are more accurate as they go slower.

192K will go away when the sales guys figure another way to get people all charged up.

The "airbrushed" sound of analog is desireable distortion of the original source. We grew up with it and use those sounds (tape) as a reference to how things *should* sound in a recording. The kids of today will use digital as a reference as to how a recording should sound. Some old guy, who is listening to his wire recorder is shaking his head over the horrible sound of the newfangles magnetic tape recorder those damn kids are using.

It is all in your mind. You are conditioned to it and you have a right to your opinions as well. But, just let the other folks have their say too and respect their opinions. If digital recording were as bad as people seem to think it is here, there would not be the HUGE market and HUGE sales that there are all over the world. Tape is history and the existing machines will be taken care of by small companies makeing parts here and there. The tape recorder will definitely not be reborn as the cost to make them is too high in the current world economy. Digital is absolutely here to stay. The kids will grow up with it and that will just be the way it is to them. That's life.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Tim (this same name business is liable to give me an identity crisis!)
Sounds like you're married to a Joan Sutherland! That IS a gift from God. I love Joan's voice (I'm not alone) -and she's an Aussie!
Let's see...what to I have of her stuff ? Nothing on CD. Some of her early Decca stuff on well looked after vinyl. Handel's Let the Bright Seraphim, recorded in stereo in '59 I think. It makes me all goosebumpy. I have a couple of old Ampex made London/Decca reel to reels of her too. A delight to listen to. I'm a bit biased maybe (or on this analog site is it overbiased) but New Zealander Kiri Te Kanawa's voice is just something else too for me. Like many older folk I love the voice of English contralto, Kath Ferrier, who died so tragically prematurely. Most of her singing was recorded to 78 but I dont care. Her voice transcends the sometimes horrible limitations of the recordings. Most of my collection is LP reissues. She is another gem. She died about the year I was born.
I'm so glad on this rather technical, nuts and bolts site to discover someone who loves coloratura singing and just good music. Music! Ah now I remember what all this equipment was meant for!
I dont thing digital is perfect and didnt say it is. Yes, digital adds imperfections, just like analog. So then it's a matter of degree. but I thought in any case we werent talking about digital vs analog, but Redbook CD's.

"tempers the harshness that digital audio adds, especially in the high end" I assume you mean the high freq's. I agree that there's distortion, and that with Redbook it's bound to be mostly with the highs because that's where the sampling is limited and you have the steep LPF's. At 20khz what sort of waveform can be resolved with only a 44.1khz sample? A square wave is the best you can hope for, I guess. The filters round off much of the harmonics of course but I'm the first to admit it's a compromise at the high end. But that's a discussion about the waveform.

What does it sound like? I confess that that HF compromise, which I know full well is there, is about the last thing I notice when listening to the average well produced CD, if I notice it at all, if I'm honest with myself. I do notice all sorts of other production faults regardless of format and sometimes I wish I didnt notice, could "switch off" and just enjoy the music, production faults and all. Kath Ferrier's old 78's do it for me, bringing me back to earth.

Months ago I asked the proprieter at the local second hand vinyl store to keep an eye out for Roberta Flack/First Take. I'd forgotten all about it and this week he rang me to say he had come across a copy in pretty good condition. Well I picked it up, got home, set it up on the turntable with dust bug and all, and let it rip, holding the almost mint cover picture of Roberta at the piano while I sat listening to that magic voice with that soulful, jazz inspired backing group. What an experience!
Recording imperfections? That session must have been a rough demo or something. "First take" says it all. Roberta's mic pops badly. The dynamics of her voice could have been better moderated in the mixing stage (she sometimes gets lost badly in the mix)
and on my favourite track of the album, I told Jesus, her voice track has so much tape or pre hiss on it that they seem to have had to shelve everything above about 3k just to stop the hiss overwhelming everything else.
But you can still hear the hiss, or more correctly a rush, and so Roberta sounds like she's got false teeth and forgot to put them in for that song!
I dont care! As the guy writing the liner notes says, "she sings her ass off"
And I say, Amen and amen.
So Tim I hope this puts things in a bit more perspective for you. I guess on this site, we're equipment junkies, but in the end it's the music that it's all about. Hearing about you and your lady's love of music tells me you feel the same way.
Regards, Tim

 

[Tim Gillett]

Masters that are destined for Vinyle have different eq'ing for low end and the highs are boosted in certain frequencies. These eq changes are because of the physical characteristics of vinyle. To re-master for CD, the eq can be set back to "normal" shall we say. Master tapes made for records are different and would sound bad if placed directly to CD.

Did you read what I said, and which you quoted ? I said, "I understand that the signal could be processed to accomodate the limitations of vinyl but we werent talking about that" (my emphasis). I certainly wasnt talking about what you seem to allude to which is the RIAA curve and which I fully understand in terms of vinyl. I believe there could be further processing in addition to RIAA such as a bit more comp/limiting to accomodate the limitations of vinyl, watching out for out-of-phase lows, and a general moderating of the very highs and very lows to make lp's and 45's play more reliably and less distorted, even at the expense of some strict fidelity to the actual studio product. But again the context of what I said shows I wasnt talking about that either.
I read somewhere that sometimes these latter masters, if indeed there were such masters designed for vinyl format only, (but not with RIAA eq - that WOULD sound disastrous on CD unless corrected first) were dubbed straight to digital and finally CD's, with less than ideal results, though I would hardly think they would have sounded terrible. Just the same eq, dynamics etc as the vinyl when replayed correctly.
You seem to suggest that there were masters which replayed, even with normal NAB/IEC eq on record and playback, with an RIAA encoded sound. I find that very hard to believe. 1.Why not just use an RIAA eq "encoder" module after the tape output? 2.In any case, RIAA on top of NAB/IEC record/play eq would have destroyed the tape's optimum S/N, making the low freq residual noise from the tape machine far too prominent, or from the other end, risking severe saturation of the tape at high freq's. The tape had already been correctly equalised, as tape, by the machine. That is unless I'm mistaken! The tape machine techs would have been up in arms.

So just trying to clear that up. I hadnt been talking about mastering for vinyl.

Regards, Tim

 

[Lt. Bob]

Masters that are destined for Vinyle have different eq'ing for low end and the highs are boosted in certain frequencies. These eq changes are because of the physical characteristics of vinyle. To re-master for CD, the eq can be set back to "normal" shall we say. Master tapes made for records are different and would sound bad if placed directly to CD.

just a quick comment ..... this isn't correct. Master tapes done for vinyl are no different than tapes done for CD. They do the RIAA equalization after the recording prcess is complete and in the process of cutting the laquer master. In fact ..... that's where mastering engineers got their start.
They actually vary the spacing of the grooves using a 'look ahead' meter so that they have more spacing for louder passages and tighter for quiet ones to maximize the volume and playing time of each side. RIAA equalization is done at this time.

 

[Dr ZEE]

it is mighty groovy that one can point a kid at mozart or ginastera or widor -- or miles or basie or monk -- and they can go about their day with an ipod full of truly great music and learn what made it all so magic to us... with the sacrifices in fidelity have come the ability to reach a broader group of folks... this actually benefits those of us -- many in this forum -- who simply don't have the equipment to make a great recording of a great tune... which brings me to my point...

without an audience, no amount of perfection is relevant...

imho... of course...

Going through these lines causes me a lot of pain.... jeeee... this hurts
It's mighty groovy that one can point a kid at Mozart.
arghhhhhhhhhh. God save us all. Poor kid... what did that kid do to deserve to be punished? ... but that is funny.
Now for not so funny stuff:

mozart or ginastera or widor -- or miles or basie or monk -- and they can go about their day with an ipod full of truly great music
There's no one single kid on this planet who runs around with an i-Pod stuffed with such "collection". Not a chance

...and learn what made it all so magic to us...
First of all kids don't use i-Pods for learning anything, but even if they did do so it would not be anything close to reasonings for what "it" made what evr "it" is for "us". And who "us"? Do I smell "us and them" view of the world again? Yeah, "us" are something... while those "them" are nothing and have long long run to pass to get anywhere near "us". ... Oh, boy

with the sacrifices in fidelity have come the ability to reach a broader group of folks...
Oh, how beautiful A little sacrifice is worthy of reaching out in the name of greatness of the Art of Music. ... I am droping tears now - how sweet it is
...While the reality is not so sweet at all and can be described as: "That little piece of sh*t , called i-Pod, would not have a f*ng chance on the market if it was not for CDA-to-mp3 ripping, P-to-P and free downloads. That's what started it all and that's what it's all about." I can say a lot more about the whole mp3-story (from the very start - through mp3.com/Sephora huoneymoon days - to nowdays' industry of so-called on-line distribution of digital intertainment content), but it makes me sick just thinking about it... it maks me REALY REALY sick. God! It makes me ill ... !!!!!!!!
********
this actually benefits those of us -- many in this forum -- who simply don't have the equipment to make a great recording
Now, ok, "of course" many in this forum got no freaking great equipment (what ever that means btw )... but how does "this" benifit anybody? especially! those who got no freaking equipment? The one who got no equipment to make a great recording and wishes to make a great recording needs to get the equipment. Yes? No? I'm freaking confused
hmmmm, so what does it take to make a great recording? - I have no clue. But I'd rather "drop that plan" and hell with all the benifits.
*********
without an audience, no amount of perfection is relevant...
For an artist "perfection" is the only thing that is relevant and it's only relevant internally to the artist. The REST is irrelevant! It's in the nature of the art. Artistic expression comes from within and the perfection of its unique form can not be comprimised, negotiated, adjusted, altered etc. in the name of any other matter than the artistic impression itself. No exceptions. Presence or absence of the audience is one of other matters.

Having said that, I have to note, that the act of music recording/production not always is an art form. So, "perfection" can be actually irrelevant to music recording/production regardlessly ... (

/respects

 

[littlesongs]

"kids don't use i-Pods for learning anything..."

well, lessee... when i was a lad, everyone was head over heels in love with personal audio... the transistor and earbud... the walkman revolution... gradeschool was a time to absorb music... and to try to record things on reel to reel and cassette... and yes, i had mozart, joplin and bach mixed in with the clash, talking heads and cheap trick on my walkman... i also practiced and performed trombone, baritone and tuba... when i was in high school, perhaps i should have been getting my trenchcoat pressed and my glock loaded, but i went music shopping, studied and did weekly radio shifts... most of my spare time was spent playing records... this isn't all that unusual... artists study art... from a very young age...

thousands of posts have proven that there is a place on this bbs for a thoughtful person... so, i will resist the temptation to leave the majority of pithy thoughts to wags with commercial aspirations and bitter little minds... everyday, i gotta chuckle at the fools who think that nothing that came before matters... it's only now now now baby... well... i suppose if you haven't been weaned, that sort of singlemindedness is healthy... it keeps you fed... but even a little baby eventually becomes a toddler and learns to stop taking from his mother long enough to thank her... this is an early lesson... to take anything that came before for granted is pretty goddamn foolish...

zee, you come off like a creationist... well, kiddies... the earth was null and void... and this amazing guy... see... came up with all these ideas in a week... and... um... it was.... me.... yeah... that's the ticket... nope... sorry pal, you have no original ideas... in fact, worldwide, even at our present rate of intense breeding, we still won't have any new ideas on this planet next week or the week after... it's all been done... reinterpretation is what humans do... copy a bird, make an airplane... copy a bird, sing a song... guess what doc, davinci had concepts we still tap into here in the 21st century... and he got his ideas from the world around him... and other people... no thought is something you hatch from any sort of pure originality... anyone who thinks so is a pathetic liar...

music started with clapping, voices and skin drums... over centuries, music evolved into a science with symphonies played by orchestras... and then... they tried to capture it... and it took millions of souls to get it there... and thousands more to figure out how to capture it... it's too bad that you don't seem to like anything i have mentioned in my posts... you know what... you'd be surprised... alot of people do...

we had the immensely talented son of my friend bernd -- when he was three years old -- on a record... one afternoon when the bass player was volunteered for babysitting duty, i recorded an eleven year-old singer-songwriter who had talent and it didn't matter what age she was... she was good... and so was her brother... and later, so were my pal kevin's brood... they all relaxed and felt at home around the microphones in no time at all... and if other kids learn to play actual instruments instead of hiding behind a sampler and a synthesizer bank... well... music might not be such a putrid wasteland... but... i won't give you any more ammo in your "us" and "them" stuff... popular music has always cheated the public... great talents were ignored long before wax cylinders... and often, when youth is spent or the youth are done spending, a career is left to die...

finally, you ignored the "great song" part of my argument about fidelity... rhythm and blues, early motown, field recordings from lomax... the list is endless of recordings that were compromised in sound, but not in performance... the emotive element was far too clear to be muddied by any technical limitations...

when i say this... it isn't to "excuse" anyone from trying to make better recordings... of course we wouldn't be here if it weren't something we were pursuing... it is simply to encourage people to let folks hear what they are up to without fear of being attacked by the morons... of course, your responses only serve to reinforce people's concepts of what is and isn't good enough... and... further moronic attacks only toss the soul factor under the bus...

i was really appreciating the technical discussion going on and thought i might interject something a bit more cerebral into the conversation... perhaps reflect a bit on my personal experience and give back something to the people who have shared so far... i know... those five dollar words are killers... and those composers, musicians and engineers are folks you've never heard of and therefore hate... are they just so much evidence that you will never be remembered as an original? i don't get you man, you illustrate every post like a comic book with google... it's not like you can't do the homework like the rest of us... and... perhaps... add something to the scene instead of writing in warm poop on the studio wall...

"Speaking of nice people, is(was) Bob ever seen as a Nice Guy? hmmmmm , what do you think?"

well, no... one could only assume that he went to visit woody guthrie just to make sure the one guy who could call him a sham was truly incapacitated... mister z. went on to snow everyone around him... he wove tall tales of the road helping farm workers unionize and hopping trains in blizzards and hobos and gangsters and whatall until he had fabricated an entire lifetime including his name... at the same time, musically, he created thinly disguised carbon copies of what he learned from woody and others... some might say he stole woody's whole act lock, stock and barrel... oh, he also free-loaded off of everyone he knew in new york for months and months and months... let's not kid ourselves, much as i and many others enjoy and admire bob dylan, his career started out with the same level of credibility as the monkees... when he realized that it wasn't pushing as much product as he and columbia would like, he lost his nerve to write anything directly political and concentrated instead on the kind of post-grad pseudo-intellectual plagaristic mumbo jumbo that later got jim morrison laid... phil ochs had big stones, bob did not... he benefited greatly from alot of talent surrounding him and by fostering a well crafted and carefully rehearsed mystique... do i like bob? sure... i even love him sometimes... like when he isn't bullshitting... "blood on the tracks" comes to mind... but i know better than to consider him a diety... and no, he is not, nor has he ever been, a "nice guy"

some of the other posts i found rather inspiring, so... i'm gonna go spin some vinyl...

 

[Beck]

I am afraid you don't really understand about digital recording basics and have pretty much fooled yourself into hearing something that you really don't understand. I believe you hear something you like, can't argue that, you hear what you hear, but it is more likely you like the sound of the A/D, D/A and filter design in one of the systems you are using.

Greater resolution beyond 96 is totally overkill and creates a system with a Megahertz bandwidth. Speakers are not capable of producing anything much more than 22Khz. Greater wordlength than 24 bit is hardly necessary as the dynamic range of 24 bit goes way below the noise floor of the best amplifiers in the world. 192Khz is a sales ploy that burdens the computer with waaaay too much data to store and actually introduces more distortion because the charging time on caps, transient time on other electronic components are more accurate as they go slower.

192K will go away when the sales guys figure another way to get people all charged up.

The "airbrushed" sound of analog is desireable distortion of the original source. We grew up with it and use those sounds (tape) as a reference to how things *should* sound in a recording. The kids of today will use digital as a reference as to how a recording should sound. Some old guy, who is listening to his wire recorder is shaking his head over the horrible sound of the newfangles magnetic tape recorder those damn kids are using.

It is all in your mind. You are conditioned to it and you have a right to your opinions as well. But, just let the other folks have their say too and respect their opinions. If digital recording were as bad as people seem to think it is here, there would not be the HUGE market and HUGE sales that there are all over the world. Tape is history and the existing machines will be taken care of by small companies makeing parts here and there. The tape recorder will definitely not be reborn as the cost to make them is too high in the current world economy. Digital is absolutely here to stay. The kids will grow up with it and that will just be the way it is to them. That's life.

No, sorry... not even close.

 

[Beck]

Tim (this same name business is liable to give me an identity crisis!)
Sounds like you're married to a Joan Sutherland! That IS a gift from God. I love Joan's voice (I'm not alone) -and she's an Aussie!
Let's see...what to I have of her stuff ? Nothing on CD. Some of her early Decca stuff on well looked after vinyl. Handel's Let the Bright Seraphim, recorded in stereo in '59 I think. It makes me all goosebumpy. I have a couple of old Ampex made London/Decca reel to reels of her too. A delight to listen to. I'm a bit biased maybe (or on this analog site is it overbiased) but New Zealander Kiri Te Kanawa's voice is just something else too for me. Like many older folk I love the voice of English contralto, Kath Ferrier, who died so tragically prematurely. Most of her singing was recorded to 78 but I dont care. Her voice transcends the sometimes horrible limitations of the recordings. Most of my collection is LP reissues. She is another gem. She died about the year I was born.
I'm so glad on this rather technical, nuts and bolts site to discover someone who loves coloratura singing and just good music. Music! Ah now I remember what all this equipment was meant for!
I dont thing digital is perfect and didnt say it is. Yes, digital adds imperfections, just like analog. So then it's a matter of degree. but I thought in any case we werent talking about digital vs analog, but Redbook CD's.

"tempers the harshness that digital audio adds, especially in the high end" I assume you mean the high freq's. I agree that there's distortion, and that with Redbook it's bound to be mostly with the highs because that's where the sampling is limited and you have the steep LPF's. At 20khz what sort of waveform can be resolved with only a 44.1khz sample? A square wave is the best you can hope for, I guess. The filters round off much of the harmonics of course but I'm the first to admit it's a compromise at the high end. But that's a discussion about the waveform.

What does it sound like? I confess that that HF compromise, which I know full well is there, is about the last thing I notice when listening to the average well produced CD, if I notice it at all, if I'm honest with myself. I do notice all sorts of other production faults regardless of format and sometimes I wish I didnt notice, could "switch off" and just enjoy the music, production faults and all. Kath Ferrier's old 78's do it for me, bringing me back to earth.

Months ago I asked the proprieter at the local second hand vinyl store to keep an eye out for Roberta Flack/First Take. I'd forgotten all about it and this week he rang me to say he had come across a copy in pretty good condition. Well I picked it up, got home, set it up on the turntable with dust bug and all, and let it rip, holding the almost mint cover picture of Roberta at the piano while I sat listening to that magic voice with that soulful, jazz inspired backing group. What an experience!
Recording imperfections? That session must have been a rough demo or something. "First take" says it all. Roberta's mic pops badly. The dynamics of her voice could have been better moderated in the mixing stage (she sometimes gets lost badly in the mix)
and on my favourite track of the album, I told Jesus, her voice track has so much tape or pre hiss on it that they seem to have had to shelve everything above about 3k just to stop the hiss overwhelming everything else.
But you can still hear the hiss, or more correctly a rush, and so Roberta sounds like she's got false teeth and forgot to put them in for that song!
I dont care! As the guy writing the liner notes says, "she sings her ass off"
And I say, Amen and amen.
So Tim I hope this puts things in a bit more perspective for you. I guess on this site, we're equipment junkies, but in the end it's the music that it's all about. Hearing about you and your lady's love of music tells me you feel the same way.
Regards, Tim

Yeah, for me it's the music first. Whatever way I can achieve the sound I'm looking for is just fine with me. I have my wife's Master's recital from the 80's on reel-to-reel, recorded at 7-1/2 with Maxell 35-90B. It still sounds extraordinary. Being that she can sing nearly as high as I can whistle, I would only put her voice on tape.

 

[Dr ZEE]

add something to the scene instead of writing in warm poop on the studio wall...

hEY, HEY... MISTER "EDUCATOR", why don't you apply for a job at some local middle school or something, then at least you'll be "educating" somebody who "asked" you, ... so at least then you'll have an excuse.
You've spread a lot of sticky crap here, but I still can smile at you, dude.
One thing expressing your views, sharing opinion or experience, another thing is acting like (or pretending to be) an arrogant college professor who have never managed to get over his own "I'm so f*ng knowledgable and smart and forced living in the pile of ignorance" - mind-worm. Your attitude really would make me puke, if I was not so preoccupied by smiling, here:
*********
First of all your blitz-swing over the "history of music" is nothing more than a baseless meaningless cliche-like yet very romatic and ear-catchy expression, (this kind of stuff, btw , is spread like infection throughout all the history and especially history of art "study books").
music started with clapping, voices and skin drums... over centuries, music evolved into a science with symphonies played by orchestras... and it took millions of souls to get it there...
It's too bad that you have no idea how baseless and ,frankly , laughable that stylishly iterrupted by "dot dot dot" line is.
Yes people were drumming, and clapping and what have you. So what? They did and they still do and so they will.
"over centuries, music evolved into a science with symphonies" ....
Music evolved? MUSIC did? !!! Did it, really? A science? SCIENCE?!!!!!
Music did not evolved. It did not do a thing. As a matter of fact there's no such thing as "music", - non-existing imaginary "entity" for "romantic writers". There were individuals who did things. And as for classical music "science" - it "grew" from a form of activity of a "few" as a 'pure' creation of individuals within elitist for elitist and it had absolutely nothing to do with drumming and clapping. A small club for a small circle of people that was (and still is and always will be such).
...and it took millions of souls to get it there...
Oh, boy! To get where? From there to here? From a desert to A Castle? ..LOL.. Do you mean like there was some sort of Progressive Evolution of the music - from primitive skin drum banger to Alfred Schnittke? He-heh-heh. Right on, Professor. No, dude, that is not a "pathetic lie", it's just a made up notion originated by a history theorist to be published in a history book. Ooooops, did I say originated?.... I guess I am wrong again here, since nothing is originated.... it has to fall off naturally from the chains and networks of millions...
There is no way I could of squeeze facts, examples and comments into a post in that respect, so am not going to even try. Maybe You! should do YOUR! homework, and not in a "traditional" manner - reading books of history of arts, but insted do it as clear and fresh minded thinking individual... oh, yes!!! try to do it as you are the first one who ever has done it - and you'll be surprised by what you may find out. But, then again, maybe it's too much work for you? Why bother, since it was already done by others? Right? I don't know, but you may try someday... it's a lot of fun to .
*********
you ignored the "great song" part of my argument about fidelity
I have NOT! I've ELIMINATED it actively and with precision. Why? Because I was talking about recording and not about performance and specifically I was not talking about mixture of both.
**********
I am talking about recording artist's compromise(s).
I am not talking about guitarist or a song writer compromise.
I am not talking about recording professional on the dead line either.

rhythm and blues, early motown, field recordings from lomax... the list is endless of recordings that were compromised in sound
Wrong! They never were compromised in sound. Compromise means "giving up something in exchange".... You can not compromise something what you don't have (something that is not in existence, that is).
You deduct when compromising.
Replacing analog tape with digital recorder is a compromise. Replacing CDA with mp3 - is a compromise.
Also, one can not compromise something that he/she is not aware of. So if you care about how you recordings sound, but never heard tape or CDA, then 128 kbps mp3 is not a compromise at all (for You).
*********
Also I am not talking about what things you can do with i-Pod and what it may be useful for. I am talking about what for and how that device IS being used by 99% of users...

*********

no thought is something you hatch from any sort of pure originality...

That may is true for you. Actually by reading you "enlighting" essay I almost sure, that it is very true in your case.

anyone who thinks so is a pathetic liar...

If the "wisdom" you are preaching here was actually reflecting the reality, then I'd prefer to be a pathetic lier, so to carry on a little hope for changing that reality.
********
...
Now, littlesongs, I want some more Bands, Musicians and Composers names. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeese! ... I collect them in the old cigar box.
Shine ON! Shine On.

 

[littlesongs]

since this is the "world wide web" i feel we are entitled to our opinion, whatever it may be... but... when we are all nerds here... asking questions, fixing our machines and doing dorky things like 10 hour mix sessions... or driving 600 miles for a tape machine... i don't need to feel as if i am not enough of an audio jock for you... but there has to be the cooler guy... lemme guess... you are cooler, right?

hey... if you don't like me... that's cool, but don't act as if it's a barrel of laughs reading your micromanagement of my posts or any others... i once taught at a high school... yes, i am guilty of three years of teaching broadcasting part-time... yes, i am a published writer... this is irrelevant... it's how i communicate... i impart too much information and poetic fluff, fine... but i don't pick out things to piss on... you see... some of us need fireplugs only when there is a fire...

if this is your sacred territory and you need no input... wonderful... but i keep meeting alot of really bright folks with good things to say... and they post here... and i learn from them... and sometimes, they learn from me... you give them the business too... should we all just give you our lunch money now? or wait until recess?

it's funny, if i wax poetic on my fantasy baseball bulletin board... they tell me to send it to "elysian fields" -- but not in a malicious way... they say it because it is kinda nice once in a while to get away from obp, whip, k/bb and ops+slg... these are jocks... but they have plenty of clearance between knuckles and floorboards... and they know... deep down, if they weren't nerds, they wouldn't be playing in a stat based la-la land...

 

[littlesongs]

rhythm and blues, early motown, field recordings from lomax... the list is endless of recordings that were compromised in sound...

"Wrong! They never were compromised in sound. Compromise means "giving up something in exchange".... You can not compromise something what you don't have (something that is not in existence, that is).
You deduct when compromising."

let's see... many black musicians were so marginalized that they were recorded by a volunteer white guy on a borrowed portable mono deck... at the same time a white crooner named bing crosby could do his own home recordings and a white guitarist named les paul -- with only one measly hit -- had the only multi-track unit outside of a multi-million dollar movie studio... i think leadbelly breaking rocks and getting permission from the warden to record with lomax -- a dedicated amateur -- is plenty of, "giving up something in exchange."

conditions weren't a hell of alot better for the funk brothers... recording on a three track in a garage with the piano sitting on a sheet of plywood over a dirt floor... that was motown... and black... recording with mitch miller in a gorgeous old church with 100 foot ceilings and state of the art technology... that was columbia... and white... both labels had those studios for the entire 1960s... motown eventually got more tracks and a real floor... and not much more...

something that wasn't in existence was a level playing field... or a fair market... when it came to the r-n-b records, pat boone hamfisted crap is what whites were buying by the millions... not jackie wilson... those recordings by blacks in america were successful because of the emotive honesty of the performers and one really amazing (and integrated) house band -- whether it was stax, atlantic, motown... whatever... (can't you tell the difference in fidelity between the rolling stones at chess -- a good black studio -- or olympic -- a midline white studio? um... pretty obvious to my ears...) success of black music happened in spite of limitations that were more than technology catching up... technology had caught up... after race played in, it was simply financial... "they were giving up something in exchange" every day... and it still wasn't gonna build them a perfect studio... just ask tom dowd...

 

[Dr ZEE]

... yes, i am a published writer... ...

The editor of your published writings must have been doing a hell of a job replacing all those "dot-dot-dot"(s) with something that connects.

....
btw, I AM COOLER!

lol

/later

 

[littlesongs]

a couple quick comments...

first, vinyl mastering is different... there might be a magic whatsit somewhere... but warner spent some coin to get the latest built to spill mastered individually, just for the vinyl release... and that wasn't the first time in recent years... virtually every band i know that does 45/CD-ep is much happier doing it specifically for each format... could they all be deluding themselves? perhaps... i know from past experience that mastering for cassette is different than cd if only because of the noise floor...

second, i am thoroughly digging the two tims here... with all our diy aesthetic, it is really cool to know that classical musicians haunt this forum... i have a friend, bernd who has recorded live opera rehearsals for years to give to the performers as reference... it's even tougher on him because his job is to not only get a good balanced sound, but to make sure that it is so balanced that mistakes are easy to spot... for a long time it was just a little mackie board, a dat and two really good mics... not bad for a fellow more famous for being in a band called, smegma...

tim, yer lucky enough to be married to a real songbird... i have a wonderful painter that curls up next to me, but i admit, it sure would be something to be able to record her...

peace, harmony and counterpoint...

 

[Dr ZEE]

rhythm and blues, early motown, field recordings from lomax... the list is endless of recordings that were compromised in sound...

"Wrong! They never were compromised in sound. Compromise means "giving up something in exchange".... You can not compromise something what you don't have (something that is not in existence, that is).
You deduct when compromising."

let's see... many black musicians were so marginalized that they were recorded by a volunteer white guy on a borrowed portable mono deck... at the same time a white crooner named bing crosby could do his own home recordings and a white guitarist named les paul -- with only one measly hit -- had the only multi-track unit outside of a multi-million dollar movie studio... i think leadbelly breaking rocks and getting permission from the warden to record with lomax -- a dedicated amateur -- is plenty of, "giving up something in exchange."

conditions weren't a hell of alot better for the funk brothers... recording on a three track in a garage with the piano sitting on a sheet of plywood over a dirt floor... that was motown... and black... recording with mitch miller in a gorgeous old church with 100 foot ceilings and state of the art technology... that was columbia... and white... both labels had those studios for the entire 1960s... motown eventually got more tracks and a real floor... and not much more...

something that wasn't in existence was a level playing field... or a fair market... when it came to the r-n-b records, pat boone hamfisted crap is what whites were buying by the millions... not jackie wilson... those recordings by blacks in america were successful because of the emotive honesty of the performers and one really amazing (and integrated) house band -- whether it was stax, atlantic, motown... whatever... (can't you tell the difference in fidelity between the rolling stones at chess -- a good black studio -- or olympic -- a midline white studio? um... pretty obvious to my ears...) success of black music happened in spite of limitations that were more than technology catching up... technology had caught up... after race played in, it was simply financial... "they were giving up something in exchange" every day... and it still wasn't gonna build them a perfect studio... just ask tom dowd...

Hola-mola freaking roller!!!!!!
After reading this I have to use "100%" expression twice, here we go:
You 100% missing the point. And, I am 100% convinced that you indeed WERE published . Guys like you do well in being published (speaking of pathetic things ) .

One thing you'll never be able to comprehend is that those artists were NEVER compromised in sound. If they were, we would not be talking about them today.
You also have a real issues with getting in touch with the main concept of art in general, dear teacher. I would not dare try to help you out for two reasons: first, I am not capeable of doing so due to my limitation of education and lack of educating experience; and, second: I don't want you to get in tough with that concept. I rather wish you to stay away from art as further as possible, in the name of God's Love, that is
*********
now, one thing I still want to ask you though:

davinci had concepts we still tap into here in the 21st century... and he got his ideas from the world around him...

So which one is it, Teacher? Were those concepts his or were they intelectual property (or say: abandoned belongings) of the world surrounding him? Let's at least try to connect one of those "..."(s).
I guess asking about his paintings would be totally stupid thing to do. He obviously were just drowing static and moving things that he saw in the world around him, or was re-arranging things that he saw around him into some rather very "questionable configurations"... which, of course, could be a simple consequence of simply having too much wine.
*********
"One who is empty within shall not create."
who said that?

- I did.

littlesongs, you are welcome to use that phrase in your next writing. It's free. Take it as: "a gift from the world surrounding you to you" , heh heh

/later

 

[littlesongs]

hey zee... davinci... um... helicopter... mighta seen one? guys like you bore me... and... not surprisingly... most everyone else...

the not so veiled racism that says that it's okay to compare apples and oranges in production is not becoming... so stuff it right now...

as far as education goes, don't grow my ivy walls too thick... i have a high school diploma... that's it... i just didn't spend those four years squeezing pimples and scraping a bong... and... not surprisingly, i still know how to pay attention when i am recieving information...

i will not be gracing you with any further replies to your banal ravings... i will click ignore and enjoy the beauty of those here who don't look around for things to pick apart... and you can continue to sell whatever it is your selling... and whatever it is your selling won't be missed by the farmers who let you share truckloads of it with the rest of us...

 

[Dr ZEE]

as far as education goes, don't grow my ivy walls too thick...

I don't.

I am sorry you've misunderstood. Ah, it's OK, you ARE special

 

[Dr ZEE]

the not so veiled racism that says that it's okay to compare apples and oranges...

Here's another free "gift" for you:
Racists are those among the rest who due to their intellectual core defect are incapable of seeing without comparing, period.
A part of a big problem is that not that they've inhereted the defect (it couid be just a matter of their private suffering), but is that they restlessly write and get published.
God save us all.
********
/later